[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 191 (Tuesday, December 13, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8500-S8507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GLOBAL WARMING
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I understand that some of my colleagues
here in the Senate and in the House as well do not believe global
warming is real and they do not want to see our country and, in fact,
other countries around the world take the necessary actions to deal
with this issue. That is fine; everybody is entitled to their opinion.
But it does seem to me to make a bit of sense that we listen to the
leading scientists of this world, not only in our own country but
throughout the world, and hear what they have to say about global
warming and the need to respond.
The National Academy of Sciences in our country, the United States,
joined by academies of science in the United Kingdom, in Italy, in
Mexico, Canada, France, Japan, Russia, Germany, China, India, Brazil,
South Africa, have said ``climate change is happening even faster than
previously estimated'' and the ``need for urgent action to address
climate change is now indisputable.''
They are not talking about whether climate change is real or not
real. What they are saying and what scientists all over the world are
saying is that climate change is happening even faster than previously
reported. Eighteen scientific societies, including the American
Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science said:
Observations throughout the world make it clear that
climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research
demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human
activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are
based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary
assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of
the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
That comes from the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical
Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Further, it is not just scientists in our own country or throughout the
world who are talking about climate change, who are talking about the
need to respond vigorously to that crisis, but right within our own
government, the U.S. Government, we have the Department of Defense
saying:
Climate change is an accelerant of instability.
What that means is that when there is drought, when countries around
the world are unable to grow the food they need, when there is flooding
and people are driven off the land, and when people migrate from one
area to another,
[[Page S8501]]
this creates international instability, which is of concern to the
Department of Defense.
The CIA understands that ``climate change could have significant
geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty,
environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile
governments,'' as well as ``food and water scarcity.'' That is from our
own CIA.
But it is not just scientists around the world, not just government
agencies in the United States; you have a business whose life and
death, whose profit margin depends upon understanding this issue and
that is the insurance industry. If the insurance industry ends up
paying out a whole lot of money when there are disasters, they are
going to lose money. They have to understand climate change and the
disasters, the weather disturbances that occur from that. This is what
they say, in a report from the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners. They found there is ``broad consensus among insurers
that climate change will have an effect on extreme weather events.''
These are guys whose profit margins depend upon that analysis.
Many Americans and people around the world are concerned about the
future impacts of global warming on our planet and what is going to
happen 10 or 20 years down the line, and that is terribly important. We
have to understand what climate change is going to do to our planet in
years to come. But we do not have to just look at what may happen 20 or
30 years from today; we should be looking at what is happening right
now, in the year 2011. The World Health Organization reports annual
weather-related disasters have tripled since the 1960s, causing more
than 60,000 deaths per year. The National Climatic Data Center shows
that 26,500 record-high temperatures were recorded in weather stations
across the United States this summer. Texas set the record for the
warmest summer of any State since instrument records began in 1895.
Oklahoma set a record for its warmest summer, exceeding records set
during the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. Drought in Texas has led to
wildfires that destroyed more than 1,500 homes in Texas.
A 2010 heat wave in Russia killed 56,000 people. The heat wave in
Europe in 2003 killed 35,000 people. We can look at Pakistan, which in
2010 had a record 129-degree temperature. All of that is consistent
with what scientists have been warning us about for years.
NASA's James Hansen said climate change ``loads the dice'' in favor
of more extreme weather events. Hansen said the answer to whether
greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to these extreme weather
disturbances is ``yes . . . humans probably bear responsibility for the
extreme event.
There is much to be said. I think a number of colleagues are coming
to the floor. But I want to yield the floor to a Senator who has been
an absolute leader on this whole issue, fighting for the environment,
and that is Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the statement my colleague has made is
truthful and important, but there is absolutely more to this story even
than that. At another time I will discuss at greater length the oceans
dimension to what is happening to our planet as a result of the carbon
pollution we are emitting at literally unprecedented levels in human
history. But for now let me say it is very severe, very dire, and to
everyone who is listening and paying attention, the ocean is emitting
warning signs that we disregard at our peril.
In addition to the threat of environmental harm, connected to the
problem of carbon pollution is a huge opportunity and that is the
opportunity of clean energy. Clean energy will drive the decades to
come. Clean energy jobs can and should be powering our economic
recovery.
We are in a race right now. We are in a race for dominance and for
preeminence in the clean energy economy that is emerging. All around
the world, other countries see it. They are competing in that race.
They are putting everything they have into winning that race. But
because we have a political system that is still listening to the
dirty, polluting energy industry and using the politics of Washington
to interfere, we are constantly having to fight to stay even. One of
the things we are fighting right now to preserve is the section 1603
Treasury grant program, which will expire at the end of this year if we
do nothing. This program has been vital for our renewable energy
industry. It has leveraged nearly $23 billion in private sector
investment, supported 22,000 projects which collectively power more
than 1 million homes. This is big. This is no longer some tiny little
cottage industry. The National Renewable Energy Lab estimates the 1603
program has supported up to 290,000 U.S. jobs.
If we look more largely at the renewable energy sector, renewable
energy is more labor intensive, creates more jobs than fossil fuel
energy per dollar invested, creates more jobs than fossil fuel energy
per megawatt generated, and the clean economy as a whole, including
renewable energy and energy efficiency and environmental management,
employs 2.7 million workers in this country. It is more than the fossil
fuel industry, but the fossil fuel industry owns this town and they
keep stepping on this larger, growing, clean energy industry.
We are seeing it, unfortunately, out there in real life. Americans
invented the first solar cell in 1995. America had 40 percent of the
global manufacturing volume. We are now down to 7 percent of the global
manufacturing volume of solar cells.
China is investing $20 billion more in clean energy every year to
accelerate ahead of us. European countries have feed-in tariffs so
investors can know what their clean energy product will sell for and
that is attracting capital and growth there, and we simply are not
keeping up. We are now, in the United States of America, the home to
only 1 of the top 10 wind turbine manufacturers. This is an unhealthy
place to be and we need to get back into this fight. The mature
industries that America leads have demonstrated the important role of
government intervention at their early days. Our commercial aviation
industry has been the envy of the world through its entire history. The
United States of America subsidized airmail to help support this
fledgling industry. They purchased planes for military purposes to help
support it and supported it with aeronautics R&D.
The same thing should be happening in clean energy, and we need to
work very hard to make sure this 1603 Treasury grant does not die on
the cutting room floor as we come to the end of this year. If it does,
jobs will go with it. There will be an immediate response. Projects
will be terminated, people will be laid off, divisions of companies and
smaller companies will close, and it is an unnecessary, self-inflicted
injury we should avoid.
Let me bring it home. In Rhode Island this project has facilitated
solar panel installation on three new bank branches. The TD Bank has
opened in Barrington, East Providence, and Johnston, RI. Those projects
created jobs, put people to work, and lowered the costs of their
electrical energy. Step by step it gets us off foreign oil and these
foreign entanglements to defend our supply.
The city of East Providence, RI, is in the middle of planning a 3-
megawatt solar project on an old landfill, land that had gone out of
use effectively but now will be generating power for that city.
Construction has also begun on three wind turbines at the Fields Point
wastewater treatment facility in Providence. The turbines will meet
more than half of our big water utility's energy needs.
A company called Hodges Badge--if your child has ever won an award in
a track meet, in a horse show, or in a school production, they probably
got a ribbon for it, and that ribbon was probably made by Hodges Badge.
It is a great Rhode Island company. It has 95 employees. They have gone
completely clean energy, and they are doing that to protect those 95
jobs. They are doing it to lower their energy costs, and they are doing
it to do the right thing.
I salute Senator Sanders for his eloquence on the real problem of
climate change and the campaign of lies and propaganda that has
interfered with our ability to deal with what is a real and emerging
problem, and also to
[[Page S8502]]
point out that the second step in this is that there are jobs and there
is economic success behind the clean energy industry that will lead us
out of the predicament we are creating for ourselves because people
here are in the thrall of the polluting industries.
I thank Senator Sanders very much.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to reiterate the very important
point that Senator Whitehouse has made. This struggle is not only to
transform our energy system, to move away from fossil fuel, and to end
the absurdity of importing over $300 billion a year in oil from Saudi
Arabia and other foreign countries and move toward energy independence,
this effort is to cut greenhouse gas emissions so that we save the
planet. This effort also has to do with creating jobs in the midst of
the worst recession since the Great Depression.
I hope that every Member of the Senate is on the side of the American
workers in helping us to grow sustainable energy companies so we create
the jobs we need in this country rather than let China and other
countries dominate those industries.
Mr. President, I am very proud to give the floor over to the
chairperson of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, certainly
one of the great environmental leaders here in the Senate, Senator
Barbara Boxer of California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the time remaining in Senator
Sanders' block?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 36\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Is the Senator satisfied if I take about 7 minutes?
Mr. SANDERS. That would be fine.
Mrs. BOXER. I want to say how proud I am of the Environment and
Public Works Committee. To be chairman of the committee that has such
incredible Senators, such as those you have heard from--Senator
Sanders, Senator Whitehouse; we also have Senator Cardin, Senator
Carper, Senator Baucus, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Merkley, and
Senator Lautenberg. I hope I am not leaving anyone out. These are the
environmental voices, the commonsense voices for jobs, for clean
technology, for a bright future for our Nation, so to be the chairman
of that committee is an honor beyond my every expectation.
It is not to say we don't work with Republicans; we do on public
works matters. We work very well with Senator Inhofe and his team of
Republicans on public works, but when it comes to the environment,
there is nobody home over there. As a matter of fact, they do harm.
Today I am going to talk about the need to create jobs through this
sector, but I also want to say, while my colleagues are here, an
interesting development that has happened on the payroll tax cut bill
that the House is about to pass. We have a kind of inside-the-Beltway
term when extraneous provisions are added to a bill that will bring
down the bill, and we call that a poison pill amendment. I have never
said to you when I coined that phrase ``poison pill'' amendment that it
is literal. In this case they have attached to the payroll tax cut--
which is on the one hand giving a tax cut to the middle class--a
literal poison pill by rolling back a Clean Air Act provision that will
require a very small percent of the boilers in this country to cut back
on the filthiest of all pollution, including mercury, arsenic, and
lead. I will say that again: mercury, arsenic, and lead.
If I were to stop anyone in the street, they don't need a degree in
science to know if those are good things or bad things for you. They
didn't even have to see the movie ``Arsenic and Old Lace'' to know that
arsenic is bad. Lead damages the brains of our kids. Mercury has
horrible impacts, particularly on children. So they have attached a
poison pill, literally, because it will kill 8,100 more people than
otherwise would have been killed from pollution. They have attached
that to the payroll tax cut. How is that for a Christmas gift? Hi, I am
your Senator, here is a tax cut for you of about $1,000, but, sorry,
you might die from breathing in too much poison in the form of mercury,
lead, and arsenic.
That is what is going on here. Honestly, we have asked for a lot from
Santa in our day, but we never asked for lead, arsenic, and mercury.
The reason Senator Sanders took to the floor today--and the reason I
am proud to be here--is because we all say here in this Chamber that we
care about jobs. We all say here in this Chamber that we want to be
energy independent. We should all add that we want less pollution. Our
colleagues on the other side never mention it. We should add that we
want less carbon pollution, which is leading us to extreme weather
conditions, climate change, but they don't say that. We say that.
How do you do it? Well, there are many ways. One is to enforce the
clean air laws we have, by the way, that will help get carbon out of
the air. But a very easy way as we extend this payroll tax cut, which
we all want for our middle class, is to say we should extend those
clean energy tax breaks that allow us to move toward innovation. You
hear a lot of talk from the other side about how solar energy is in
decline and they talk about Solyndra and the problems there. Let me
tell you something, that mindset would mean we never would have made it
to the Moon because we know what happened to Apollo 1. It was not good.
We didn't walk away from going to the Moon. We expected there would be
problems with the program that we put together. That is why we had $2
billion to offset any companies that might not make it. Do we stop
cancer research because a lot of the scientists' leads don't pan out?
We don't walk away from cancer research. But our friends on the other
side, the minute they can seize on something to walk away from clean
energy, they do. I have come to the conclusion that there is only one
reason for it, and that reason is they represent--and this is my
opinion--big oil, big polluters, the people who, over the years, have
tried to stop us from moving away from those fossil fuels.
All you have to do is read the history books to see how big oil
teamed up with the auto industry to take out all the railroad tracks
that they could to stop the competition. All you have to see is the
movie ``Who Killed the Electric Car.'' You cannot even find those GM
cars. They took them and literally flattened them and they bought time
for the gas-guzzling cars until finally, with President Obama's
leadership, we were able to influence the companies in Detroit to make
them understand the very simple fact that if we move to cleaner burning
fuels, if we move to fuel economy, they are going to make a lot more
money because that is the future.
What we face here instead of seeing an extension of the clean energy
provisions to help us move toward solar, to help us move away from
fossil fuels, to help us get a better balance of payments, to move away
from the Middle East dictators, we see nothing. What do we see? We see
another poison pill in another one of their bills over there to repeal
the standards for light bulbs. What are these people thinking? They
need a light bulb to go off in their own head. We have to move toward
energy efficiency. It is a win-win-win.
I am going to talk about California in my remaining time. We have
seen great progress there. We have added 79,000 jobs in the clean
energy sector in the past 7 years, and that clean energy sector remains
one of the most promising industries in our State, and people are
happy. We are going to put a million solar rooftops on in California. I
know Senator Sanders has been calling for this for years. California is
doing it with Governor Brown leading the way with the legislature. Do
you know what that means? It means that people are going to work in
California. You cannot be in China unless you have an extremely long
arm and put a solar rooftop on in Los Angeles or in Riverside County or
San Francisco or San Diego. So we need to reauthorize 1603, the
Treasury grant program, which allows developers to receive a grant in
lieu of a credit, in lieu of a writeoff. That means they will get the
funding and they can move forward with their front. It is leveraged by
$22 billion in private sector investment. If we extend the program, we
will be creating 37,000 jobs.
I have to ask rhetorically: What is wrong with the Republican Party
that they don't understand that when you extend these kinds of tax
credits, you move away from the dictators who control the oil supply
and who would turn on us in a minute, and instead you create jobs here
at home, the air is less
[[Page S8503]]
polluted, the kids have less asthma? There are very few things that we
could come to the floor and say are such a win-win-win.
There is 48-C in the manufacturing tax credit, which provides a
credit for facilities that make clean energy equipment components. We
know there is a demand for these programs.
I want to say to my colleagues on the other side who are on the EPW
Committee, I hope they will join me at 2:30 p.m. We are going to have a
press conference to talk about the need for protecting the air that we
breathe and for the need to see a payroll tax cut that doesn't come
over here loaded down with things that are going to lead to riders that
are unrelated, that are going to lead to the death of our people.
Simple message: No poison pills that poison the people, please. I
hope they will join me there. But I want them to know, and I want to
say, Senator Whitehouse organized a letter that was critical to get all
of us on this letter. I ask Senator Whitehouse, through the Chair, how
many signatures did you get?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. We had over 30. The number is still climbing
retroactively--but more than 30 Democratic Senators.
Mrs. BOXER. That is a very large number of Senators to have put their
names on a letter. These letters are hard. People are busy. They do not
have time. You get 30 names on a letter, and we say: Extend these tax
cuts for jobs, for the environment, for all the good things. I ask
unanimous consent to have the letter Senator Whitehouse organized
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, December 7, 2011.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Max Baucus,
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington. DC.
Hon. Orrin Hatch,
Ranking, Senate Finance Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid, Republican Leader McConnell,
Chairman Baucus, and Ranking Member Hatch: We are writing to
urge your support for the extension of key expiring clean
energy and efficiency tax provisions that create jobs and
protect our environment. Allowing these incentives to expire
would harm the U.S. economy, eliminate tens of thousands of
jobs, and sideline billions of dollars of private sector
capital investments. In particular, the renewable energy
industry would be negatively impacted by an expiration of
provisions.
One of the most critical tax provisions set to expire this
year is the 1603 Treasury Grant Program (TGP), which has
provided a way to finance renewable energy projects despite
the breakdown of tax equity markets and has proven a
particularly effective job creation tool. Over the last two
and a half years, the TGP has leveraged nearly $23 billion in
private sector investment for 22,000 projects in every state
and across a dozen clean energy industries, including solar,
wind, biomass, fuel cell, combined heat-and-power, and
hydropower projects. To date, the program has spurred the
construction of sufficient new generation capacity to power
more than one million American homes and has supported
roughly 290,000 U.S. jobs. Allowing the TGP to expire would
shrink financing available for renewable energy projects by
52 percent, according to a July 2011 survey by the U.S.
Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance. This would kill
tens of thousands of jobs across all clean energy industries
and states.
We have seen what happens when these credits expire. The
biodiesel production tax credit lapsed in 2010, and fuel
production dropped dramatically, shuttering dozens of plants
and putting thousands of people across the country out of
work. Given our nation's urgent need for more transportation
fuels from domestic sources that are both secure and
environmentally sound, we cannot let that happen again. With
the biodiesel tax credit in place again for 2011, domestic
production has more than doubled, supporting more than 31,000
jobs and generating at least $3 billion in GDP and $628
million in federal, state, and local tax revenues.
We also support additional funding for the Advanced Energy
Manufacturing Tax Credit (48C), which has leveraged timely
private investments in new, expanded, or re-equipped advanced
energy manufacturing projects throughout the country. The
program has been able to leverage $5.4 billion in private
investment, boosting growth and creating new U.S.
manufacturing jobs producing components and equipment for the
burgeoning global renewable energy industry. Applications to
the program have far exceeded the program's original
allocation, indicating a tremendous potential for continued
investment and job creation in the manufacturing sector.
Without funding for programs like this, we effectively
forfeit clean energy manufacturing to countries like China.
The Production Tax Credit (PTC) has facilitated tens of
billions of dollars in new clean energy generating capacity,
particularly in the wind industry, which has created
thousands of new manufacturing and construction jobs in many
of the hardest hit parts of our country. Last year, new wind
power represented over one-third of all new U.S. electricity
generation capacity. This is an industry in which the United
States currently has a trade surplus with China, Brazil. and
other fast-growing developing economies. We need a timely
extension of the PTC to keep these jobs in the U.S. and
provide certainty to investors.
These expiring tax provisions have demonstrated their
effectiveness in catalyzing private investment and job
growth, spurring U.S. technological innovation, and
diversifying our nation's energy mix. In light of the
critical role these incentives and others have played in
fostering U.S. economic growth, now is not the time to let
them lapse, even temporarily. We believe it is important
these critical tax provisions be part of any year-end tax
legislation.
Sincerely,
John F. Kerry, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara Boxer, Jeff
Bingaman, Maria Cantwell, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeanne Shaheen,
Robert Menendez, Bernard Sanders, Richard Blumenthal, Dianne
Feinstein.
Mark Udall, Sherrod Brown, Ron Wyden, Daniel K. Akaka,
Debbie Stabenow, Tim Johnson, Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley,
Michael F. Bennet, Mark Begich, Amy Klobuchar.
Jack Reed, Patrick J. Leahy, Al Franken, Joseph I.
Lieberman, Tom Harkin, Christopher A. Coons, Frank R.
Lautenberg, Barbara A. Mikulski, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Carl
Levin, Bill Nelson, Daniel K. Inouye.
Mrs. BOXER. I would yield back to our leader on this important block
of time. I would yield my time back to Senator Sanders. We are
determined to get this done right for the American people.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator Boxer very much, not only for her words
but for her leadership on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
I wish to reiterate a very important point Senator Boxer made. She
reminds us of great moments in the history of this country. This
country, with great difficulty but persistence, built a railroad ahead
of the rest of the world that went from the east coast to the west
coast. It was not easy. This country led the world in putting a man on
the Moon. It was not easy, at great expense, difficulties, but we did
it. Does anybody not think this country can lead the world in
transforming our energy system away from polluting fossil fuels to
energy efficiency, to sustainable energies such as wind, solar,
geothermal, biomass, other technologies? Can we not lead the world in
making our own country more energy efficient, making our air cleaner
but also in creating large numbers of jobs as we weatherize our
buildings, as we build the solar panels we need to build the wind
turbines, as we put more engineers and scientists to work to help us in
this energy transformation.
I wish to pick up on a point Senator Whitehouse made a moment ago,
which is that while we talk about energy transformation, while we all
understand that over a period of years, the oil industry, for example,
has received billions and billions of dollars of permanent tax breaks,
what we are fighting for right now is to see that the 1603 renewable
energy grant program is renewed. As Senator Whitehouse indicated, 1603
allows renewable energy developers to get a grant instead of a tax
credit. Since 2009, when this program was enacted, it has leveraged
nearly $23 billion in private investment supporting 22,000 projects in
all 50 States and supported approximately 290,000 jobs, according to
the National Renewable Energy Lab. Since 1603 was enacted, solar jobs
doubled to more than 100,000 jobs.
We have to make sure that before Congress adjourns for the Christmas
holidays, we renew 1603. It is enormously important for the renewable
energy industry, enormously important for jobs in our country.
With that, I would yield the floor to Senator Whitehouse.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank Senator Sanders. Senator Cardin has arrived
so I will hand off to him in a moment. But to the Senator's point about
the imbalance between support for the fossil fuel energy industry and
the renewable energy industry; the first being one that hurts our
national security, pollutes our air and costs a fortune and
[[Page S8504]]
is phasing out and the second being one that is growing, that is clean,
and that is the way of the future.
According to the Environmental Law Institute, the U.S. invested
almost six times more in subsidies for fossil fuel from 2002 to 2008
than we did in renewable energy. So by a factor of six times, we have
our thumb on the scales supporting the old dirty industry against the
new, rather than supporting the new the way our international
competitors are doing.
I ask unanimous consent that a response from Secretary Chu to a
letter Senator Sanders and I and other Senators wrote to him about the
status of and success of our clean energy investments be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Secretary of Energy,
Washington, DC, November 16, 2011.
Hon. Bernard Sanders, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, Hon. Debbie
Stabenow, Hon. Sherrod Brown, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Hon. Christopher Coons, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, Hon.
Richard Blumenthal, Hon. Jon Tester, Hon. Patty Murray,
Hon. Mark Udall, Hon. Patrick Leahy, Hon. Tom Udall, Hon.
John Kerry, Hon. Carl Levin, Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr.,
Hon. Tim Johnson, Hon. Michael F. Bennet, Hon. Jack Reed,
Hon. Daniel Akaka, Hon. Jeff Merkley, Hon. Kirsten E.
Gillibrand,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators: Thank you for your October 5, 2011 letter
requesting an update on United States investment in clean
energy technology and job creation. I strongly agree that the
United States faces a critical decision point in our Nation's
energy future if we hope to compete in and win the global
clean energy economy. As President Obama has said, ``The
country that leads the clean energy economy will lead the
21st century global economy.''
The annual global clean energy market is estimated to be
worth more than $211 billion, up 32 percent from 2009. The
global market for solar photovoltaic systems alone represents
an $80 billion market this year. It is estimated that the
global renewable energy market will grow to $460 billion by
2030, with a cumulative investment from 2010 to 2030 of
approximately $7 trillion in new capital. This increased
market is being driven by increased global demand and
technological advances that are rapidly making renewable
energy cost competitive with fossil energy.
The economic stakes are high. However, we are currently at
risk of falling behind our global competitors who are seizing
the opportunity by investing more heavily and establishing
market policies that give them a strategic advantage. The
United States currently ranks first in only one of the top
ten clean energy benchmarks. Thanks to our world-class
universities and national labs, we still hold an edge in
technology innovation, but we are falling further and further
behind in key areas such as manufacturing competitiveness and
exports. Countries like China are moving forward with large
investments.
There are some who say that we cannot compete with China. I
respectfully disagree. However, time is of the essence. I
would like to work with you to establish a comprehensive
energy policy that targets all aspects of the energy value
chain--innovation, manufacturing, deployment, financing, and
markets--to provide the certainty American businesses and
entrepreneurs need to compete with their global counterparts.
Without a comprehensive, long-term energy policy framework
focused on this full energy value chain, American business
will continue to move capital and jobs overseas to take
advantage of more business friendly policies.
The questions you have posed in your letter are very
important to understand America's current position in the
clean energy economy, including where we have been successful
and where we need to improve. While these questions are very
complex, I have attempted to succinctly answer each of them
as directly as possible. I also have included additional
background information related to each question you raise to
provide a fuller understanding of our domestic clean energy
landscape.
I know that you care deeply about these issues and that you
understand the opportunity presented by the growing demand
for clean energy technologies. There is a growing debate in
Congress on issues relating to the clean energy innovation
chain and the steps we can take to position America to win
the clean energy technology race. I want to make sure you
know that I am personally available, along with my senior
staff and the full resources of the Department to assist you
in gathering information and in providing technical
assistance on these issues. I am fortunate to have a
thoughtful team of professionals who wrestle with these
issues every day, and I would be happy to make them available
to you.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond and for your
commitment to America's energy future. I look forward to
working with you and your colleagues to help recapture our
leadership role in clean energy by establishing smart
policies to win the clean energy technology race.
Sincerely,
Steven Chu.
____
Questions and Answers
1. How have the investments that the United States has made
over the last several years contributed to the growth in
energy efficiency deployment and renewable energy generation,
and what projections can you share for the near future?
Jobs: The clean energy sector directly employs nearly 1.6
million people in the U.S. The Recovery Act alone has already
saved or created over 225,000 clean energy jobs and is
estimated to add an additional 800,000 jobs by the end of
2012. As of August 2011, the U.S. had created over 100,000
solar-focused jobs and at least 75,000 jobs related to wind
installation in 2010.
Renewable Energy: Through investments in clean energy, the
United States is on track to double U.S. renewable energy
generation in four years (from 71 TWh in 2008 to 178 TWh in
2012). For example, the highly leveraged 1603 grant in lieu
of tax credit program has led to the deployment of more than
5,000 renewable energy projects across the country. These
projects have enough capacity to power more than one million
homes.
Energy Efficiency: Over the last two years, the Department
of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program has helped more
than 750,000 low-income households save on average more than
$430 per year on their energy bills. The program has
supported over 14,000 jobs across the country and thousands
of additional jobs throughout the supply chain. Residential
efficiency standards are currently saving consumers about $25
billion per year in energy costs--a savings of approximately
$250/year per household. A recent analysis estimates that
appliance standards have created an industry supporting
340,000 jobs, with expected growth to 380,000 jobs by 2030.
Transportation: Three years ago, American businesses
accounted for only two percent of the market for advanced
batteries. We are now on track to establish annual production
capacity for 500,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,
helping support a projected total of 1 million electric
vehicles on the road by 2015. New fuel economy standards will
save American families an average of more than $8,000 at-the-
pump for cars in 2025 compared to those in 2010. These
improvements will reduce America's dependence on oil by an
estimated 12 billion barrels, and, by 2025, reduce oil
consumption by 2.2 million barrels per day--enough to offset
almost a quarter of the current level of our foreign oil
imports.
Near-Future Projections: All the trends suggest that the
cost of electricity from solar and onshore wind is either
already or will soon be cost competitive without subsidies
with electricity from natural gas in many parts of the
country. This will result in sharp increases in renewable
energy deployment. Between 2010-2030, estimates suggest a 7.9
million cumulative net job-years of direct and indirect
employment to be created as a result of this electricity
supply forecast. The renewable energy and energy efficiency
sectors are estimated to see a 6.4 million net job-
years increase (an 80 percent share of total increase)
during this period, with the rest of the increase mostly
coming from natural gas.
2. In particular, how is clean technology playing a role in
rebuilding our manufacturing base, and creating jobs in
construction and manufacturing supply chains?
Roughly 26 percent of all clean energy jobs lie in
manufacturing. On average, clean energy manufacturing exports
represent roughly twice the value of traditional exports on a
per job basis ($20,000 versus $10,000). Between 2003 and
2010, technology manufacturing produced explosive annual job
growth rates (e.g. 18.4 percent for solar thermal, 14.7
percent for wind, 10.7 percent for solar photovoltaics,
etc.).
3. How do our policies and investments in clean technology
compare to foreign competitors, how would proposed reductions
in clean energy research and development funding impact
American competitiveness, and do American manufacturers have
a level playing field?
The table gives a global score card for clean energy
investments. The U.S. has fallen behind China and other
nations in total clean energy investments. Venture capital
investments are largely focused on technology innovation, and
the U.S. is the overwhelming leader. However, technology
innovation is a lagging indicator of prior investments in
science and engineering R&D, the majority of which is
government sponsored. In 2008, the U.S. invested only 0.03
percent of its GDP on public energy R&D, which ranks behind
China, Japan, and Canada and is tied with S. Korea. Finally,
U.S. public energy R&D investments have declined by a factor
of four since the late 1970s. While the U.S. is currently the
leader in technology innovation, increases in Chinese
investments in energy R&D suggests that U.S. leadership in
the future is not guaranteed.
[[Page S8505]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number for Top
Categories (Year) Top Rank Rank US Ranking US Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Clean Energy investments China.................. $54.48 3 $34B
(2010).
Clean Energy Investments as Fraction Germany................ 1.40% 9 0.23%
of National GDP (2010).
Five Year Growth Rates in Clean Turkey................. 190% 11 61%
Energy (2010).
Venture Capital Financing (2010).... USA.................... $6B 1 $6B
Public R&D Investment as a fraction China.................. 0.11% 5 0.03%
of GDP (2008).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In relation to China alone, the U.S. leads China in only 1
of the 6 key clean energy investment indicators. In
particular, China is outpacing the U.S. by over 2 to 1 in
clean energy asset financing, which typically produces the
largest number of jobs.
Chinese trade practices are also having a significant
impact on the ability of U.S. clean energy manufacturers to
compete in the global marketplace.
4. How do current incentives for renewable energy compare
to support for other energy technologies when those
technologies were first emerging?
The success of fuels and technologies in the energy market
depend on a wide range of factors, one being subsidies. The
Environmental Law Institute found that between 2002 and 2009,
fossil fuels received more than double the amount of
subsidies (approximately $70 billion) than renewable fuels
($29 billion) over the same period. Moreover, their report
suggests the most significant portion of the fossil fuel
subsidies are in the form of Foreign Tax Credits, indirectly
supporting the overseas production of oil.
Over the longer term, another report suggests that the
historical average of annual energy subsidies is roughly
$4.86 billion for oil and gas (1918-2009), $3.5 billion for
nuclear (1947-1999), $1.08 billion for biofuels (1980-2009)
and $0.37 billion for renewables (1994-2009). Accordingly,
for the first 15 years since the birth of each technology,
non-hydro renewables for electricity generation seem to have
received lower subsidies in equivalent dollars than the other
technologies.
In energy R&D alone, federal spending since 1978 on fossil
fuel and nuclear energy sources has significantly outpaced
spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy: nuclear
energy (37 percent); fossil energy (26 percent); renewable
energy (16 percent); energy efficiency (14 percent).
5. What is the potential for continued growth in energy
efficiency deployment and renewable energy supply, and job
creation in these sectors, over the next 10 years and beyond?
The current world market for renewable energy is projected
to grow from approximately $195 billion in 2010 to
approximately $395 billion in 2020 and $460 billion by 2030.
The cumulative investment from 2010 to 2030 will be
approximately $7 trillion in new capital. The potential
growth for energy efficiency is also significant. McKinsey
and Company estimates that the U.S. economy has the potential
to reduce annual non-transportation energy consumption by
roughly 23 percent by 2020, eliminating more than $1.2
trillion in energy waste. This would also result in the
abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse-gas emissions
annually--the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of
passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads for one
year. The Center for American Progress estimates that
retrofitting just 40 percent of the residential and
commercial building stock in the United States would:
--Create 625,000 sustained full-time jobs over a decade;
--Spark $500 billion in new investments to upgrade 50
million homes and office building;
--Generate as much as $64 billion a year in cost savings
for U.S. ratepayers, freeing consumers to spend their money
in more productive ways.
____
Fact Sheet
The U.S. imports roughly 50 percent of the oil we use, much
of it from countries that are not always friendly to the
U.S., and we pay an estimated $1 billion per day. Our economy
and our people are vulnerable to fluctuations and steady rise
in global oil prices, and we do not have much control over
them. We are more dependent on foreign oil today than we were
at the time of the first ``energy crisis'' nearly 40 years
ago.
We urgently need to develop alternatives for transportation
energy that are based on domestic, clean and sustainable
resources. The U.S. invented the lithium ion battery that is
used in plug-in hybrid cars, and in 2009 it had only about 2
percent of the world's manufacturing volume. We need to
innovate to regain our lead; otherwise we will become
importers of batteries instead of oil.
Between 2003 and 2010, the technology-focused ``cleantech''
sector produced explosive job gains in the U.S. and the clean
economy has outperformed the overall nation's economy.
Roughly 26 percent of all clean energy jobs lie in
manufacturing, compared to just 9 percent in the broader
economy. On average, clean energy manufacturing exports
represent roughly twice the value of traditional exports, on
a per job basis ($20,000 versus $10,000). The renewable
energy sector is estimated to see a 5.7 million net job-years
increase (a 72 percent increase) between 2010-2030, with the
rest of the increase mostly coming from natural gas (1.6
million job-years). This is a fast-growing sector to create
new jobs in the U.S.
The cost of renewable energy has fallen dramatically (solar
over 70 percent in the last three years) and these costs will
continue to decline. Renewable energy costs are competitive
with conventional energy costs in many parts of the world and
will be in the U.S. within several years. Therefore, the
current world market for renewable energy grew 30 percent
between 2009 and 2010, and is projected to grow from
approximately $200 billion in 2010, to approximately $400
billion in 2020 and $460 billion by 2030. The cumulative
investment from 2010 to 2030 will be approximately $7
trillion in new capital. Other nations are positioning
themselves to avail of this massive opportunity because this
will create new domestic jobs.
The U.S. invented the modern solar cell, and had more than
40 percent of the global manufacturing volume in 1995. Today,
it has about 7 percent of the manufacturing volume. This is a
rapidly growing industry, and we are falling behind.
The global competition for clean energy jobs is fierce.
China ranks first among all nations in overall investment,
clean energy asset financing, and the use of public markets
to invest in clean energy. The United States currently ranks
first in only one of the top 10 clean energy benchmarks--3rd
in overall investments, and 9th when it comes to investment
as a percentage of GDP. Trends in 5-year investment growth
rates in clean energy show that U.S. does not appear among
the top 10 countries.
America faces a choice about what to do with the
opportunity presented by the global clean energy race. We can
compete in the global marketplace--creating American jobs and
selling American products--or we can buy the technologies of
tomorrow from abroad. I believe all Americans would agree
that the U.S. should compete to win the future.
How can we win the future? We must leverage our Nation's
strengths and core competencies to simultaneously address the
five components of our energy value chain--innovation,
manufacturing, deployment, finance and markets.
1. We have the world's best and most innovative
universities, national labs and small businesses in clean
technologies. We must double down with smart and sustained
investments in R&D to unleash our unique capacity to innovate
clean energy technologies.
2. We must provide long-term predictable support for
American entrepreneurs and businesses so that they can
catalyze private sector investments to translate these
innovations into manufacturing and jobs. This will enable
these technologies to become globally competitive, affordable
worldwide, and to be sold without subsidies.
3. American entrepreneurs and businesses need access to
low-cost, long-term, and large-scale capital if they are to
be globally competitive. We have the world's largest capital
markets. We must find ways to leverage this strength by
unlocking this capital to finance clean energy investments
for both manufacturing and deployment.
4. Finally, innovation, manufacturing and deployment occur
only if there is a demand for these technologies here in the
U.S. Just like the new fuel efficiency standards are creating
a market for domestic innovations in transportation, policies
such as the Clean Energy Standard can create demand for clean
electricity from renewables, nuclear and clean fossil fuels
produced in the United States, and provide certainty for
American entrepreneurs.
The stakes are too high to wave the white flag and
surrender. It is a fight we can and must win.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield to Senator Cardin.
Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank my colleague for yielding. I wish to thank
Senator Sanders, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Boxer, who were on the
floor on this issue.
I just wish to underscore the point that was just made about having a
level playing field, where we have tilted the scales in favor of fossil
fuels over renewables. My colleagues have already talked about the
direct difference in our subsidies. I would like to add an additional
element; that is, when you look at the subsidies we give to the fossil
fuel industries, they are permanent. They are in the Tax Code. They do
not go through the annual exercise of an extender.
What does that mean? That means the lack of predictability in
sustainable energy means there is a higher cost for investment. It
tilts the scale in favor of oil and gas, rather than on sustainable,
renewable energy sources. I would just mention three. The Congressional
Research Service did a report on this, just three of the provisions
that benefit the oil industry: the excess of
[[Page S8506]]
percentage over cost depletion, the expensing of exploration and
development costs, and the amortization of geological and geophysical
expenditures. Just those three provisions that are permanent in our Tax
Code, between 2010 and 2014, will cost the taxpayers over $10 billion.
We are subsidizing the oil industry, and we should not be doing that.
We should be encouraging a transformation to sustainable energy issues
as my colleagues have pointed out for the purposes of national
security. It is good for our environment and it is good for jobs. This
is about jobs. That is why we cannot go home until we have extended the
tax provisions, particularly 1603 but others of the energy-related,
sustainable energy provisions.
I wish to talk for one moment, if I might, about the production tax
credit we need to extend because I want to talk about one specific
project in Maryland, on a brownfields site that we are dealing with
that relates to energy. Some might say: OK. That does not expire until
2013. But here is the problem. You have to have it in production by
that date. Our waste-to-energy projects--it is not going to be in
production by that date. So if we do not extend it this month, the
project will be at a standstill in Baltimore.
There are 1,900 jobs at stake--1,900 jobs are at stake on just that
one project which, by the way, helps our environment, helps our energy,
and also helps our economy. That is why it is critically important that
before we leave, we extend these sustainable energy tax credits, so we
can get the investment.
Quite frankly, I would like to see us make some of these permanent.
We make them permanent, we get predictability. We get predictability,
it is less cost, it encourages more activity in this area. That is what
we should be about, creating jobs for our country. The wind energy
credit alone would allow us to create another 54,000 jobs. So this is
about job growth for America. It is about our energy security, and it
is about a cleaner environment. It is about America's future.
That is why we have taken the time to point out to the American
people that Congress needs to make sure it is active on these areas
before we adjourn for the year. We owe that to the people of this
country.
With that, I will yield to my friend from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the Senator from
Maryland not only for his important remarks now but for, year after
year, the strong work he is doing in trying to create jobs in America
in sustainable energy.
I would like to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for his
thoughts.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank Senator Sanders. I wish to go back to this
question of the jobs and the economic value we get from clean energy.
The Department of Energy reports that the clean energy sector alone
directly employs nearly 1.6 million people in the United States. So
nearly 1.6 million families are depending on the paychecks they get
from the clean energy sector.
Within that, it is growing. The United States has created over
100,000 solar-focused jobs--100,000 solar-focused jobs--and at least
75,000 jobs related to wind energy installation in 2010. In Rhode
Island, we are seeing that coming on. The newspaper today, the
Providence Journal, reported on a permit application for the cable that
will connect an offshore wind facility that is going in off Block
Island back to the grid onshore to bring the power from that
installation back and into the New England energy grid.
But when it gets going, think of the jobs that are going to be
involved in that. Senator Reed and I worked very hard to shore up--get
money to shore up the waterside, the side of the pier at Quonset so it
would be capable of dealing with very heavy-duty installation barges
and things such as that.
So the Quonset Point facility is now ready for this construction. We
have the trains and new highways that bring in the pieces of those big
turbines. The turbines are so big you cannot build them in China, in
Europe. We have to assemble them onshore and put them right on the
barge. So the assembly of them will take place in Rhode Island, right
at Quonset, and that will mean a lot of jobs.
Then we have to barge them out and we have the barge operators and
the barge captains and the tugs. Then we sink the base, and we have to
have divers and builders and people who are experts in that kind of
marine construction.
Then we put them up. We have to operate them. We have to maintain
them. What they do is they contribute clean energy to the grid. They
are a constant supply because of the wind over the Atlantic being such
a powerful resource, and it is kind of a win-win situation. So we see
the need to get behind this in an immediate way in Rhode Island.
It would be one of the great tragedies if we let the Chinese and the
Belgians and the French and the Dutch and whoever else get ahead of us
in this competition. We do not need to. It is wrong. We are taking
ourselves out of a race we should be winning when we do that. I commend
Senator Sanders for his effort to bring us together to continue to make
this point. There are jobs here. There is an energy industry that is
going to lead the economy of the next decades of this world, and we
want America to be at the front of it and not to have sand thrown in
our gears by the dirty, polluting energy industry that is on its way
out as its last contribution to the damage it is now doing to our
economy and to our environment.
Mr. SANDERS. I wish to thank my friend from Rhode Island for his
remarks and for his extraordinary effort in fighting for jobs and
protecting our environment.
If we read some headlines today in the media, we might think,
especially the rightwing media, that renewable energy in America is on
the verge of collapse. Quite literally--this is quite literally the
case. A recent headline from FOX News said: ``Entire solar industry on
brink of collapse.''
The reality is quite the contrary. The fact is, not only is the solar
industry not on the verge of collapse, the reality is the American
solar energy industry is thriving, as is the renewable energy industry
more broadly. We have doubled the number of solar jobs in America since
2009. It does not sound to me like that industry is collapsing. It
sounds to me like it is doing extraordinarily well.
Today, more than 100,000 Americans work in the solar industry, at
more than 5,000 companies in every single State in our country, and
that includes manufacturing, installation, and supply chain jobs.
Mr. President, last year we installed nearly 1,000 megawatts of solar
power in the United States--more than double the amount installed in
2009. That doesn't sound like an industry that is collapsing to me.
With the solar industry growing at a rate of 69 percent annually, it is
one of America's fastest growing industries and is creating jobs all
over our country. The cost of solar panels has fallen 30 percent over
just the last 2 years, continuing a long-term decline in the price of
solar and making it more and more competitive with other energy
technology.
(Mrs. HAGAN assumed the Chair.)
Madam President, everyone, from Walmart to the U.S. Marine Corps, is
looking toward a future in solar. Walmart is installing solar panels at
130 stores in California, and they say:
Walmart has reduced energy expenses by more than a million
dollars through our solar program.
The military--the U.S. Department of Defense--is using solar energy
with battery storage to fully power forward operating bases in
Afghanistan.
Marine COL Bob Charette said:
For the Marines, renewable energy is about saving lives by
reducing the number of dangerous fuel convoys needed for
resupply.
The reason I am making these points is that many people don't know
the extent to which we are already making progress in sustainable
energy. We are on the verge of something extraordinary. But it is
important to understand where we are today and to refute those people
who suggest that solar and wind are not the technologies for the
future.
In terms of wind, that technology is growing rapidly. Texas alone has
more than 10,000 megawatts of wind energy installed. That is equal in
capacity to 10 nuclear powerplants--in Texas alone. Iowa now gets 20
percent of its electricity from wind. There are 75,000 wind energy jobs
in America today and more than 400 manufacturing facilities
[[Page S8507]]
in 43 States. The price of wind energy has dropped by 90 percent since
1980, and wind electricity today is competitive with fossil fuels at 5
to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. At the same time, we are increasing
American manufacturing of wind turbines, and now 60 percent of turbine
components installed in the United States are made in America, up from
25 percent in 2005.
In the midst of this horrendous and painful recession, the story of
renewable energy in the United States is actually a rare good news
story. It is a good news story. Renewable energy is helping to cut
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, it is making our country more
energy independent, and it is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
But all of this could be significantly slowed down if we do not
continue Federal support for the renewable energy industries at a
fraction of the kind of support we are giving to fossil fuels. It is
absurd that we even have to fight to extend renewable tax credits and
grants when fossil fuel industries enjoy permanent subsidies. Mature
industries, such as oil and gas, continue to reap billions every year
in Federal subsidies and massive tax breaks that never expire, despite
the fact that the top five oil companies earned nearly $1 trillion in
profits over the last 10 years. So here we are struggling to help wind
and solar--new technologies--and we are giving massive tax breaks to
mature industries that are incredibly profitable.
Contrast what we do for renewable energy to what we do with fossil
fuel and specifically with regard to the production tax credit for wind
energy, which was allowed to lapse three times in recent years--1999,
2001, and 2003--leading to an average dropoff of 81 percent in new wind
energy installation each time the credit expired. The wind credit is
set to expire again in 2012.
The point here is the one Senator Cardin made a moment ago. Unless
there is predictability, unless the industry knows these tax credits
will be there, they are not going to start investing or working on new
projects only to have the rug pulled out from underneath them. They
need stability and predictability, which is why we have to move not
only to extending these tax credits but to making them permanent.
I also want to say a word about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and that is
to say there are some in the House and some in the Senate who want to
use year-end legislation to tack on a rider that says to the State
Department: You have to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60
days.
Let's be clear about what we are talking about in terms of the
Keystone XL Pipeline. What we are talking about is a 1,700-mile oil
pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast that would carry tar sands oil.
Tar sands oil is not like regular oil. It requires an energy-intensive
process to get it out of the ground, extract it, and, in fact, to
refine it. That means it emits approximately 82 percent more carbon
emissions when produced compared to regular oil, according to the EPA.
Tar sands oil is also hard to clean up when it spills. Refining tar
sands also produces more toxic air pollution compared to conventional
oil. A tar sands spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan that happened
in 2010 is still being cleaned up, at a cost now exceeding $700
million.
In my view, the last thing we need is to eliminate the environmental
and safety reviews now taking place and fast-track approval of this
pipeline.
I also note to my colleagues who want to fast-track Keystone XL that
I, along with several other Senators and Congressmen, asked the State
Department inspector general to look into allegations of conflicts of
interest in the preparation of the environmental impact study of
Keystone XL. The contractor the State Department used for the impact
study, Cardno Entrix, has financial ties to the project developer,
TransCanada. Those ties need to be investigated to ensure that the
Federal environmental and safety reviews were done correctly and
without bias. That inspector general special review is under way right
now. I think it is completely inappropriate to try to fast-track this
pipeline when we have not even heard back from the inspector general
about potential conflicts of interest. I urge my colleagues to allow
that special review to play out before any decisions are made.
I will conclude my remarks this morning by thanking my colleagues for
joining me--Senators Whitehouse, Boxer, and Cardin--who speak for many
other Members of Congress and I think who speak for tens of millions of
Americans, who see an energy future in this country in which we break
our dependence on foreign oil, in which we no longer spend over $300
billion a year for oil from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries;
who see a future in this country where we move toward energy
independence; who see a future in this country where the United States
is a leader in reversing global warming by not only cutting greenhouse
gas emissions in America but providing technology and expertise for
countries all over the world, for them to do the same; and also
understand that, as we move to energy efficiency--and I have to tell
you that in Vermont we are leading the country in energy efficiency.
What we are seeing as we weatherize homes is fuel bills going down for
the middle-class, working-class people by 30, 40, 50 percent. We are
investing in weatherization, and the payback is pretty good. It takes
place over a very few years, when you cut fuel prices 30 to 50 percent.
In Vermont, we are probably doing as well as any other State in that
area, but we can and will do a lot better. Tens of thousands of homes
in our State can be weatherized. When we do that, we not only cut
greenhouse gas emissions, we not only reduce the need to import foreign
oil, we also create jobs. We create jobs for those people who are
producing the insulation, the new doors, the windows, and the new
roofing that makes homes and buildings more energy efficient.
Furthermore, in our State and around the country, we are seeing, as I
indicated a moment ago, significant progress in moving to sustainable
energy--the solar industry, growing very rapidly; wind energy, growing
very rapidly; other technologies, growing very rapidly. As a nation, we
should be proud of the change that is taking place. But understand that
we have a long way to go to be the kind of energy efficient and
sustainable energy Nation we know we can become and to help lead the
world in a new energy direction.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________