[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 44-51]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              CLEAN ENERGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening on truly 
what is a historic day, the beginning of this Congress. Historic, I 
will mention two reasons: One, the first woman Speaker of the United 
States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, something that certainly 
has caused a lot of joy here and across the country and it is something 
worthy of noting. But a second historic event arises from Speaker 
Pelosi's first address as Speaker of the House today that I think marks 
a pivotal moment in our future of the country when it comes to our 
energy policy.
  Speaker Pelosi today, in some of her very first comments, made a 
commitment to the country that our Nation would start a titanic and 
historic shift from old technologies associated with fossil fuels that 
are now putting massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere 
and towards the use of new technologies that can produce our mode of 
power for our cars and our planes and our buses and our homes and our 
computers, and even our hair dryers in a way that does not contribute 
to global warming. And this is her commitment and her very first 
comment, I think it was telling, that this House will pass a measure in 
very short order, in the next several weeks, that will shift a huge 
amount of our national resources away from work in these fossil fuels 
that are now contributing to global warming and put that money into a 
fund that will be dedicated to the use of new high-technological energy 
sources that can free us from Middle Eastern oil, create jobs in our 
country, and stop global warming.
  This is certainly a three-fer. And the way that she has made a 
commitment that this House will do is that we basically will repeal 
some of the less prudent activities of the former Congress that gave $7 
billion of taxpayer money to the oil and gas industry, a very imprudent 
move, an industry that is in tip-top form financially, making profits 
hand over fist, the most profitable corporation in American history, 
indeed, world history. And yet the last Congress saw fit to give 
billions of dollars of tax relief to these organizations.
  And these organizations are good organizations. They have good people 
in them. But there was no reason to give that money away when it has 
higher purpose. And that higher purpose that Speaker Pelosi talked 
about today is to take those billions of dollars, those tax goodies 
given away to these corporations, repeal those giveaways and shift that 
money, shift those public resources, into a pool of funds that will be 
used to develop new high-tech, clean energy sources that we can go 
forward to build energy independence and reduce our contributions of 
carbon dioxide and other gases that are contributing to global warming. 
And I think this is a fundamental shift in American history.
  We have had a steam revolution starting with American ingenuity, with 
Fulton and others. We had an industrial revolution led by American 
inventors, Ford and others. We have had an IT revolution led by many 
people in the software business. Many of them in my district in North 
Seattle and Redmond, Washington.
  And now we are heading into a fourth revolution in the industrial 
base of America, and that is an energy revolution, where we make a 
transition from dirty fuels to clean fuels, many of which we will talk 
about tonight, and we will do it in a smart, prudent, fiscally sound 
way of using funds that are being wasted essentially on these old dirty 
technologies and shift them over, starting today with Speaker Pelosi's 
wise comments, towards these new technologies.
  And in doing so, we will use the most fundamental character of 
Americans, which is technological brilliance, innovation, creativity, 
tinkering. We are the greatest tinkerers and inventors, not speaking 
personally but our country, in human history. And now starting today, 
we are taking the first step what I call the road down to new Apollo. 
We had the first Apollo project with

[[Page 45]]

John F. Kennedy where we went to the moon.
  Today, with Speaker Pelosi's comments, we took the first step on the 
road to a new Apollo clean energy future for this country to move these 
resources into a clean energy future. And I am very excited about it 
because it will build upon the scientific prowess of America.
  I would like to yield now to one of the Members of Congress who is a 
leader in the scientific community, a physicist with a history at 
Princeton, who personifies what science can do for this country, who 
has been a leader on these clean energy issues, for some comments on 
this issue, Rush Holt of New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee). And I look forward to joining him again in the 
Apollo energy legislation as I did in the last Congress, and this time 
I hope we will get it through because the way we produce and use energy 
in the United States is the greatest insult to our planet.
  There are a lot of things that we do that are dangerous, unclean, 
unproductive. But the way we produce and use energy is the greatest 
insult. And I think what we want to talk about is the word 
``sustainable.'' We should be in this for the long haul for centuries 
to come.
  As we look back on a day like today when we celebrate the ongoing 
experiment of the American republic, we should be thinking, as those 
who wrote the Constitution were thinking, about something that would 
last for centuries. We should be embarking on a sustainable energy 
path. Not just clean energy, not just renewable energy, but a 
sustainable energy path that is environmentally sustainable, that is 
economically sustainable, and that is climactically sustainable.
  One of the big changes that has occurred, and I think Mr. Inslee 
would agree, in the last year or 2 is here in Washington, and I think 
around the country, we have come to the conclusion, some of us years 
ago, but most people very recently, have come to the conclusion that 
global climate change, human induced global climate change, is real. 
They have come to the conclusion that it is real and they have come to 
the conclusion that it is serious.
  They have not yet come to the conclusion that it is harmful. I would 
argue that it is costly and deadly. They have not come to the 
conclusion that there is something that we can do about it. But, 
indeed, I would argue that there is a great deal we can do about it. 
Some damage has been done.

                              {time}  2000

  There is much more we can do.
  Mr. INSLEE. We want to turn to the things that can be done, because 
one of the messages of the new Apollo Project is that we have a clear 
path to use technology to solve this problem. But before we launch into 
a discussion now, I just wanted to note three conversations on this 
issue about global warming I have had in the last two weeks, that I 
want to note about why this is so compelling to have new energy.
  The first conversation I had last week was with a woman who was a 
leader in the first city in the United States that is being relocated 
as a result of global warming. That is the village of Shishmaref in 
Alaska; it is on the Arctic coast of Alaska. This woman told me that 
last week the city voted to move their city, I think it is about 13 
miles off of a coastal barrier island, that is disappearing because sea 
levels are rising, the tundra is melting, and the ice that serves as a 
barrier protecting their village is melting, and their island is 
disappearing, right literally underneath them.
  They are having to move their whole city at a cost of $150 million, 
onto an inland area, that is Shishmaref, Alaska. When we have to start 
moving cities in this country to start dealing with global warming, it 
is time to have a new energy policy.
  Second, I had a conversation with the president of the Marshall 
Islands. It is an independent nation in the South Pacific of 60,000 
people. The president of the Marshall Islands told me that they are in 
an emergency situation because of the rising seas and the increasing 
frequency of big storms which are literally overtopping their islands, 
which are just a few feet. They are built on coral reefs. Their coral 
reefs are dying because the oceans are becoming warmer and more acidic 
due to global warming. We have a whole country that may go under water 
as a result of global warming.
  The third conversation I had last week was with a woman who was a 
climatologist, I may have butchered that word, meteorologist. She is an 
expert on the Arctic, basically. The University of Washington just 
published a study that said with a fairly high degree of probability 
the Arctic ice pack will have disappeared in months of September, 
disappeared with just marginal little bits of it hanging on to the 
coastline by the year 2050, with all of the changes that portends, 
including the disappearance of the polar bear, that even the current 
administration under George Bush agrees should be listed as a 
threatened species because the Arctic ice is going to disappear.
  I just note these because since Mr. Holt and I last discussed this in 
the last Congress 2 months ago, these three changes have taken place. 
This is a dramatically rapidly changing climate we have that demands an 
answer to energy policy.
  So I just want to set the urgency for taking steps, the first step.
  Mr. HOLT. The gentleman makes a very good point, but this is not just 
a matter of the frost line moving a little bit north or spring coming a 
little bit earlier so you can get your tomatoes out sooner. No, it is 
much more serious than that. The pattern of storms, the pattern of 
droughts, even the pattern of freezes will change. Ocean currents are 
already showing signs of changing. That is what I mean when I say this 
is very costly and even deadly.
  It is not just inconvenient. It does not just mean that, well, they 
are going to start growing sugar cane in Minnesota as the climate warms 
up. No, it means that lives will be lost and huge expenses will be 
incurred.
  So that is the point. Let me just finish the two further steps we 
need to take in public understanding and, I would say, in legislative 
understanding. Once we recognize that human-induced climate changes, 
that it is real, that it is serious, that it is costly, and that 
something can be done, we have to figure out what those things are, and 
the new Apollo Energy Act of the last Congress that we will get in 
shape for this Congress will give you some of those ideas, I think. But 
then we have to convince ourselves that it is worth doing these things, 
that the benefits will be greater than the cost.
  Well, I can assure you the cost will be great. But even more, we can 
make this a winner by stopping climate change, and we are in the best 
position in the world of all countries to do that because we have set 
the pattern for energy use for a century, and we can set the pattern 
for the coming century.
  We are behind other countries, are doing more, we are buying 
windmills from Europe, not the United States, just to take one example, 
but we can go on and on. We could take the lead, and I can assure you, 
I can assure the gentleman from Washington, and anyone else, that it 
will be better to sell these technologies to the world than to buy 
them, and there is going to be a huge market for alternative 
sustainable technologies.
  Mr. INSLEE. That point of being able to sell American technology to 
the world, I want to mention two companies, their CEOs I have talked to 
in the last month. One I talked to this morning is called Greenpoint 
Energy. It is a company in Boston that has developed a way to take coal 
and to process it into natural gas, then burn the natural gas in a way 
that eliminates the mercury emissions that typically come out of a coal 
stack, eliminates the sulfur dioxide that comes out of a smokestack and 
most importantly reduces carbon dioxide, the global warming gas by 60 
to 65 percent.
  Now, when I asked this young entrepreneur, who formerly did very well 
in the software industry, and is now into energy, what he saw as the 
future of this, he said it is unlimited. The reason it is unlimited is 
that we can take this

[[Page 46]]

technology that we build here, we can build these plants and sell them 
to China.
  China is building one dirty coal plant a week, a 500-megawatt coal 
plant a week in China, which is creating massive CO2 
contributing to global warming gas. Here is a company right now, they 
have got 25 employees right now, and 20 subcontractors, they can have 
thousands at some point when we start selling this technology to the 
Chinese.
  Another company called Nanosolar in Silicon Valley, California, they 
developed a way to make a solar cell using a thin cell material that 
can increase the efficiency, or at least decrease the cost at least by 
40 to 50 percent of solar energy, using a thin cell that is about 5 
percent of the current thickness of a silicone-based solar cell. They 
want to sell this technology when we develop it. We have the first 450-
megawatt capacity plant they are building right now, as we speak 
tonight. They want to start selling these around the world.
  So here is a tremendous opportunity for America to reverse our 
balance-of-payments problem and start selling things to the world 
rather than buying them.
  Mr. HOLT. The Chinese will be buying technology. There is no 
question. They would prefer not to pollute their skies. They are trying 
to clean up for the Olympics; but they are growing fast, they need the 
power, they would welcome cleaner power. As evidence of that, I would 
say that their auto fleet is already more efficient than ours.
  Because the technology is available, that is what they are buying. It 
would apply across the board in energy technologies, China, Southeast 
Asia, India, yes, and Europe.
  The gentleman from Washington spoke about American ingenuity. You 
know we in Jersey call it Yankee ingenuity, but no aspersions on those 
from Southern States or Western States. That is what it was known as, 
or good old American know-how. We can do it.
  The new Apollo Energy legislation that I joined the gentleman in the 
last Congress, talked about incentives, demonstration projects and 
investments and research and development. They are, indeed, investments 
that would pay off big.
  Mr. INSLEE. You mentioned transportation. I just want to note what I 
consider to be a very exciting development in the last 7 days in this 
country in transportation. I want to yield to a real leader in there, 
Mr. Blumenauer.
  But when it comes to cars, we have not improved the efficiency of our 
cars in 25 years. We get less mileage today in our cars than we did 25 
years ago. But in the last 30 days something very dramatic happened in 
the auto industry.
  General Motors announced that they were going to start developing a 
plug-in vehicle in the next 5 years where you can go home at night, 
plug in your car, charge your batteries off your electrical grid from 
one to two cents, effectively, a mile, you are now spending ten to 
fifteen. For one to two cents a mile off the grid, you can run your car 
for, we hope, for the first 20 miles. Then after you run out of juice, 
if you drive more than 20 miles, and 60 percent of our trips a day are 
less than 20 miles, but if you go more than 20 miles then you start 
burning either the gas or the ethanol that you got from corn and 
soybeans and rye grass. You have a flex-fuel vehicle, you plug it in at 
night, you are off to the races. That is the first thing.
  The second thing is the Department of Energy last week issued a study 
which concluded that there is enough energy-generating capacity in the 
United States, excuse me, it was a Pacific Northwest laboratory out in 
Washington State, actually, an arm of the Department of Energy. They 
concluded there was enough electrical generating capacity today to fuel 
85 percent of our cars and trucks using a plug-in battery system and 
not build a single new generating plant.
  In other words, we could fuel 85 percent of all of our cars once we 
get a plug-in battery system developed without building a single new 
dirty plant coal or even a clean coal, for that matter, because you 
have all of this excess capacity at night that is sitting there that we 
don't use. We have all these plants that just sit there unused at 
night. We can use them to charge our cars. These are two very exciting 
developments using home-grown technology if Congress acts to move these 
subsidies away from the oil and gas industry, as Speaker Pelosi pledged 
to do today, and move them into support for these new businesses and 
consumers to get the new end higher energy.
  I want to yield to Mr. Earl Blumenauer, who has been a real leader in 
trying to bring transportation, particularly public transit which is a 
very, very effective way of reducing our pollution and making our 
transportation more efficient.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your courtesy, Mr. Inslee, in permitting 
me to speak on this. I appreciate your continued leadership in 
spotlighting issues of global warming, energy efficiency, and the 
difference it will make for Americans across the country.
  I too was impressed today with the clear, articulate vision set forth 
by our new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, reemphasizing the commitment that the 
Democratic leadership and our caucus has to deal meaningfully with 
problems of global warming, energy independence and efficiency.
  Having an opportunity this evening to focus on this is important 
because for the first time in a dozen years we won't just be talking 
about this. We have legislative leadership that is committed to action, 
to dealing with the redirection of vast subsidies that have been given 
to people who need them the least, and, instead, rationalizing 
investments in areas that you have championed with alternative energy, 
wind, solar, biomass and, particularly, conservation.
  You are right, tracking the problems of transportation is central to 
dealing with greenhouse gases, global warming and our alarming 
dependence on oil imported from increasingly unstable areas of the 
world.
  I appreciate the conversation that you and Mr. Holt have had about 
the positive impact, the President and the Republican leadership in the 
last half dozen years have been baring their head, claiming that we 
can't deal with problems of global warming, climate change, energy 
conservation because of the economic disruption.
  You have cited examples from our Pacific Northwest where there are 
entrepreneurs ready to go, rolling up their sleeves, with things that 
will make a difference, creating jobs in this country, that will, in 
fact, conserve resources and save money.

                              {time}  2015

  Our ability to invest in wise, diverse transportation choices for the 
American public has the opportunity to put money in the pockets of 
Americans while it fights greenhouse gas. We consume approximately 10 
percent of the world's petroleum supply each year driving our SUVs to 
work and back. The commitment to make sure that the Arctic wildlife 
refuge is the last place we drill, not the next, that makes energy 
conservation more available to Americans, and unlocks the economic 
potential of a whole array of new technologies and products.
  I look forward to continuing our conversation here over the next few 
minutes. I, personally, am committed to continuing, as I have in both 
of your districts in the past. I know you both have constituents that 
are concerned about transportation choices. This Congress might be able 
to do something to provide equity, for instance, for cyclists, people 
who burn calories instead of petroleum, but are treated differently in 
our Tax Code for their commuting costs, for instance. I look forward to 
working with you to make these a reality and make a difference to 
enhance the planet, protect our national security and put money in the 
pockets of the American taxpayer.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Holt.
  Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to elaborate on 
a point that Mr. Blumenauer made about transportation. Not only do we 
use a lot of energy going to and from work, we waste a lot of energy 
that no one wants to use sitting in congestion. There are some parts of 
the country,

[[Page 47]]

we certainly see it in my State of New Jersey, where an enormous amount 
of energy is lost. And if we could avoid that congestion, it would make 
everyone happier, I can assure you, not just at a sense of savings, but 
it would remove the aggravation.
  Well, it is a whole lot easier to move electrons than it is to move 
chunks of metal. Smart transportation systems that take account of 
where the traffic is and where it can go, and compute in real time 
where you should go, rather than you running a car-sized computer 
system where you are trying this and you are trying that and you have 
got a million cars in this computer system in real-time trying to 
figure out the best routes. You can do that with smart transportation 
system cheap, relatively, save energy, save money, save aggravation. 
That is just one example of what we should do.
  Mr. INSLEE. I would like to point out a shining example of what Mr. 
Holt is talking about, and that is in Portland, Oregon, in part, 
because of the leadership of Mr. Blumenauer, Portland, Oregon achieved 
two very significant milestones in the last year. First, it was the 
first city ever to essentially meet the Kyoto targets for reduction of 
carbon dioxide. This proves it can be done.
  A smart transportation policy and a smart energy policy can be both 
good for your economy and meet these targets to reduce carbon dioxide. 
Portland, Oregon has achieved that, and one of the reasons is because 
of their second accomplishment, the first city in the last 30 years in 
America, has had less miles driven per individual in the last several 
decades. It is the first city that has ever accomplished that by 
developing a very sophisticated public transportation system and 
developing a living system that can reduce the need for some of our 
long commutes. And I want to point out Portland's success on this has 
been an enormous benefit to its economy, because Portland, Oregon's 
economy has been booming. The value of property has been booming as a 
result of these smart energy choices it has made, and people want to 
live there. And it is because of some of the smart choices that have 
been made in order to use energy more efficiently.
  Mr. HOLT. If I may just insert, some of those choices have been made 
by our now-colleague, Mr. Blumenauer. Much of the success of Portland 
traces back to some of the decisions that he had a part in some years 
ago.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. If the gentleman would yield
  Mr. INSLEE. Yes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your positive words about our community. 
And I do take pride in essentially having reached 1990, emission levels 
for carbon dioxide and actually having reductions in per capita 
emissions for each of the last 4 years. And it has been done, not at 
the expense of economic development and choice, but rather, as a result 
of providing it. And this is a point, I guess, that I am eager for us 
to pursue. And I appreciate the leadership that you gentlemen have 
exercised, both in terms of looking and investigating what's going on 
in Oregon and providing leadership in your own States and in your own 
communities.
  The average American family, today, pays more for transportation than 
anything else in their budget, except for housing. And for Americans 
who make less than $40,000 a year, typically, they pay more for 
transportation than for housing. So our being able to have sensible 
development patterns where people can live closer to where they work, 
employing what Mr. Holt was talking about in terms of smarter 
technology to let people know what they are getting into in terms of 
congestion, and giving people choices. This is not about saying you 
can't drive a car.
  But when I go to other communities, and since I have been in 
Congress, I have been in more than 200 communities across the country 
working on issues of transportation, land use and affordable housing. 
What I find is that people are complaining not that we are trying to 
take away their choices, but because they have no choice. Too many 
communities, people can only drive to work in a single occupant 
vehicle. In many of these communities, 90 percent of the children 
cannot go to school safely on their own by bicycle or walking. And what 
we are talking about here is giving back choices to the American public 
about where they live, how they travel, choices that will not only 
reduce congestion, improve air pollution, it will put money in the 
pockets of American families.
  Mr. INSLEE. If I can allude to a choice, another sort of choice, I 
think that is a very fundamental principle that we want to give people 
choices in their uses of energy. But I want to allude to a choice, if 
you do decide to drive a car, what kind of fuel you use. And it is a 
Democratic Party principle now under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi 
that Americans are going to have more choices about what fuel you use 
because as part of our effort to move money away from this giveaway to 
the oil and gas industry that have enslaved Americans, you are a slave 
to the oil and gas industry if you have got a car right now, to move it 
over to give more fuel choices to Americans. We intend to develop a 
vision for this country that you have the same freedom that Brazilians 
have, because in Brazil today when you pull up to the pump you are not 
a slave to the oil and gas industry, you are the boss because when you 
pull up to a pump in Brazil you decide whether you want gasoline or 
whether you want domestically manufactured ethanol made from sugar cane 
in Brazil and soon to be made through cellulosic ethanol, through corn 
and wheat and corn stovers and switch grass and who knows what kind of 
products we are going to develop so that consumers can decide what 
product they are going to put into the tank. And when we do that, we 
are going to create thousands of jobs across the country, particularly 
in the agricultural belt.
  I got an e-mail just as I was walking over here tonight about a 
little article about a company in Wisconsin that are building sort of 
the foundations for wind turbines. They can't hire people fast enough. 
Right down the road, at the Chippewa Valley co-op they are brewing 
ethanol in Minnesota to give people a choice to put ethanol in their 
tank rather than gasoline, and they have created source of jobs in this 
little town in Minnesota that was sort of a declining town at the time. 
We want to give choices to people.
  And we have another leader here tonight on those issues, 
Representative Kaptur from the great State of Ohio, that has been a 
leader in an effort to make a transition from just an oil and gas 
economy to one based on biofuels. And I have to tell you that I am very 
excited about this because I have been talking to scientists who tell 
me that we now have the possibility of having two to four times more 
bio fuels per acre than we even have today, and with our corn usage 
today that is certainly being successful with a consequent reduction of 
carbon dioxide that Representative Kaptur can tell us about. I would 
like to yield to Representative Kaptur.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank Representative Inslee for taking this 
special order tonight on the very first night of the new Congress, the 
110th Congress which is going to be so historic. And Speaker Pelosi's 
remarks today about energy independence for our country just rang so 
true. In a district like ours, which is a major new solar manufacturer, 
as well as wind turbine manufacturer and research region of the 
country. Coming from the auto belt, you don't think about that. But yet 
we are a biofuels leader. We have four plants being built now, both soy 
diesel and corn-based ethanol within our radius of 25 miles of our 
major community of Toledo, and in fact, some of them right in Toledo.
  And I wanted to just take a few minutes, if I might, and I thank 
Congressman Blumenauer and Congressman Holt. These gentlemen who are 
with us tonight are really the new age energy thinkers for our country, 
and I am really so happy to join you on this first night that we are 
here together.
  And I just wanted to put on the record some interesting information 
that I have been sharing in the committees that I serve on. This 
particular chart talks about total petroleum consumption in our 
country, and looks at

[[Page 48]]

the growing share of imported petroleum as a percentage of everything 
that we consume.
  And of course, since the beginning of the Bush administration, 
America is consuming one billion more barrels of oil per year, largely 
imported. Imports now constitute nearly three-quarters of what we use 
in this economy. Americans need to understand that. And over a period 
of time, from the beginning of the 90s, the share of imports has just 
risen until where now it comprises a majority of what we consume. This 
is a diminishing resource. Actually it is a dirty resource.
  And I wish to place on the record tonight an article that was in The 
Financial Times back in December that lists the major companies in the 
world that are privately held. And I won't read the whole list tonight, 
except to say, of the top 20 companies, three-quarters are all oil 
companies, and they are not based in the United States. So all this 
money that the United States is spending on an imported product could 
be invested here at home in the new technologies that these fine 
gentlemen and I are talking about tonight.
  Just to give you an idea, Saudi Aramco is number one on the list. Its 
value, estimated market value, is three-quarters of $1 trillion. $781 
billion. And of course, Saudi Arabia has been a very important back up 
supplier to our country. I wish it were not so, but we have become very 
addicted to that supplier.
  Petroleos Mexicanos, that oil and gas company worth $415 billion, our 
hard earned dollars flowing to that privately held company.
  I won't go through all of them, but the next, Number 3 on the list, 
and the gentleman discussed Latin America, is Venezuelan Petroleum, 
valued at $388 billion.
  Go down to Kuwait Petroleum, Number 4, $378 billion. Malaysian 
Petroleum, $232 billion. The idea is you go down and then you get into 
the companies financing this import, such as the Carlisle Group which 
has moved up now at $71 billion to Number 22 on the list. So I would 
like to submit this to the Record. The top three-quarters of these 
companies, the top 20 largest privately held companies in the world are 
all oil and gas. I wanted to make sure this was placed on the Record 
tonight, and to say that as the author of the first title in any farm 
bill in American history, a biofuels title, Title IX, we have been 
incentivizing at a very small level, about $23 million, not billion, 
$23 million dollars a year, efforts to try to help agriculturalists 
across this country own the future. It has been such a fight. And I 
heard the gentleman saying earlier this evening, finally, I think Mr. 
Blumenauer said, after 12 years, we finally have a chance to uncork 
this really developing answer for our Nation. And we hope that with the 
new farm bill and with the leadership of Congressman Colin Peterson, 
who is the right man at the right time in the right committee in the 
right country, from the Red River Valley of Minnesota, in the farm bill 
that will be produced this year, that we will be able to piece together 
the solutions that we know exist.

                                                FT NON-PUBLIC 150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Estimated
                                                                            Market
                Company              Country               Sector        Value as of    Type        Type (1)
                                                                           Dec 2005
                                                                            ($bn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......  Saudi Aramco.......  Saudi Arabia.......  Oil gas............          781        S  State owned
2.......  Petroleos Mexicanos  Mexico.............  Oil gas............          415        S  State owned
           (Pemex).
3.......  Petroleos de         Venezuela..........  Oil gas............          388        S  State owned
           Venezuela SA.
4.......  Kuwait Petroleum     Kuwait.............  Oil gas............          378        S  State owned
           Corporation.
5.......  Petroliam Nasional   Malaysia...........  Oil gas............          232        S  State owned
           Berhad (Petronas).
6.......  Sonatrach..........  Algeria............  Oil gas............          224        S  State owned
7.......  National Iranian     Iran...............  Oil gas............          220        S  State owned
           Oil Company.
8.......  Japan Post.........  Japan..............  Postal services....          156        S  State owned
9.......  Pertamina..........  Indonesia..........  Oil gas............          140        S  State owned
10......  Nigerian National    Nigeria............  Oil gas............          120        S  State owned
           Petroleum
           Corporation.
11......  Abu Dhabi National   UAE................  Oil gas............          103        S  State owned
           Oil Company
           (ADNOC).
12......  INOC...............  Iraq...............  Oil gas............          102        S  State owned
13......  Libya National Oil   Libya..............  Oil gas............           99        S  State owned
           Company.
14......  Sparkassen-          Germany............  Banking............           98        P  Association
           Finanzgruppe*.
15......  State Grid           China..............  Electric utilities.           87        S  State owned
           Corporation of
           China.
16......  Nippon Life          Japan..............  Insurance..........           87        P  Mutual
           Insurance Company.
17......  Kohlberg Kravis      United States......  Private equity.....           83        P  Partnership
           Roberts Co.
18......  Qatar Petroleum....  Qatar..............  Oil gas............           78        S  State owned
19......  State Farm Mutual    United States......  Insurance..........           76        P  Mutual
           Automobile
           Insurance Company.
20......  European Investment  Luxembourg.........  Banking............           73        S  State owned
           Bank.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. KAPTUR. I will attest and sort of end with this. In our district 
today, Dr. Al Campaan, the head of Physics at the University of Toledo, 
has a solar-powered house from equipment made in Toledo. He takes his 
truck, with six batteries home, maybe eight, every night. He drives it 
from the university back home and he plugs it into his house. The 
technology exists in Toledo, Ohio. He drives it the next morning, a 
fully charged truck, back into the University of Toledo.
  As we move to develop the technology of future, I would just 
recommend to those who are listening tonight, here in the Chamber and 
elsewhere, a wonderful book by a former decorated CIA agent, Robert 
Baer, for whom I have great admiration. He retired. He is in his 50s. 
We have probably had no better human intelligence officer throughout 
the Middle East and Central Asia. He wrote a book, Sleeping with the 
Devil.

                              {time}  2030

  When I read that book, I thought I have to meet this man, because he 
is speaking my language. The life he lived is very different than the 
life that we have lived, but he looked the problem straight in the eye. 
The subtitle of the book is: ``How Washington Became Addicted to Saudi 
Crude.''
  And I think it is important to note that the American people know 
this. They want us to do something. They want us to help transform the 
country. And I thank all my dear colleagues for allowing me these few 
minutes on the floor this evening. I was not intending to come here, 
but you have hit sort of the bull's eye of what this Member of Congress 
has been involved in for several years, and you could not be on a more 
important job creation, environmentally right set of initiatives for 
this country, and it will be a joy to be here working with you on this.
  Mr. INSLEE. We appreciate the gentlewoman from the State of Ohio. We 
know the State of Ohio is going to do some great work on energy under 
the leadership of the new governor, Ted Strickland, who is committed to 
this agenda. And he would have been here tonight, but he is serving as 
governor, or will be in about a week.
  I want to make two comments on the transition to a biofuels economy 
in the United States. First off, some people have said, well, we should 
not use fiber or plants for fuel. We have to use it only for food. I 
want to point out the fallacy of that argument. Right now we are 
exporting an enormous percentage of the foodstuffs we grow. We send it 
around the world and they send us the cash. What do we do? We take the 
cash and send it to Saudi Arabia.
  Let us cut out the middleman. Let us grow our own. This is time to 
grow our own. We are sending it all over the world and then sending the 
cash to

[[Page 49]]

Ridya and Saudi Arabia. Let us keep it right here. Let us grow our own 
fuel.
  By the way, this is no pie in the sky. The Department of Agriculture 
has concluded we could have 30 percent of our fuel easily in the next 
20 years, easily, using very conservative efforts. This is a very 
achievable goal.
  The second point I want to make is that this may happen eventually 
without Congress's help, but it will be too late. Brazil took 30 years 
to make this transition to an energy independent condition using their 
biofuels. They use sugar cane there. They took 30 years. We do not have 
30 years to wait. We have a problem with al-Qaeda tonight, we have 
trouble with global climate change tonight, and we have trouble with a 
loss of a manufacturing base in America tonight. We do not have 30 
years. So we need to act and we need to do some things that the past 
Congresses and the current administration have not done.
  Let me just mention three of them. Number one, they have not given 
loan guarantee assistance to get some of these plants going. The first 
cellulosic plant in the world, commercial cellulosic plant in the world 
is a company called Iogen. They are ready to build a plant. They have 
contracts with 300 farmers to grow a plant using the leavings of wheat 
to use cellulosic ethanol in Idaho, but they can not get the loan 
guarantee to get the job done.
  We want to get that job done and get that plant up and running in 
Idaho. And this is going to be three or four more times effective per 
acre with increasing profits to farmers as a consequence.
  Second, to give Americans this freedom to choose what fuel to use, 
they have to have cars that burn both gasoline and ethanol and, 
frankly, the industry has not been willing to do that. So we need to 
have some requirement to make sure that they make cars that burn 
gasoline or ethanol. They make a car for less than $100 to burn either 
one, so it is basically nothing to the manufacturers. We need to 
require that to be done. Now, they say they are going to do more of 
them in years, but we do not have years.
  Third, we need the pumps that pump either gasoline or ethanol made 
from midwestern corn or wheat or biodiesel. But the folks in Brazil 
will tell you that companies do not like putting those pumps in, 
because now you're competing with their gas and oil. They have a 
monopoly on gas and oil, and they are not crazy about putting in a pump 
that competes with them.
  So we are going to need to require that Americans be given a choice 
in pumps. Maybe we start by saying 10 percent of the stations have to 
have an alternative pump of ethanol, if you have 25 stations. We do not 
want the moms and pops that have to do this, if they cannot afford it. 
But if you have a big chain, why not have 10 percent of your stations 
at least have one ethanol pump so Americans can have that choice.
  We took the first step in this journey tonight when Speaker Pelosi 
said we are going to start making a shift from giveaways to oil and gas 
towards these new clean energy futures, and I am looking forward to 
making progress.
  And I yield to Mr. Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. And I am intrigued with the conversation, 
the way that it is going at this point. We talked a moment ago about 
giving Americans more choices as to how they transport themselves. We 
can avoid the disastrous policies of this administration and the past 
congressional leadership of picking winners and losers and picking the 
wrong ones to win.
  What you have described I have seen in my own State. There are people 
going gung ho in terms of biomass, in terms of wave energy, and 
technology that is emerging around the country in colleges and 
universities, in small businesses and large to take advantage of the 
opportunity.
  If we just level the playing field, if we shift the massive subsidies 
away from the people who do not need it and do not deserve it, and help 
level the playing field for these emerging technologies dealing with 
biomass from any of a variety of fuel stocks, of dealing with 
electrical, solar, wind, wave, if we level the playing field, if we 
give them a fair and predictable tax treatment, which we do not do now, 
we can take these subsidies that are frankly not buying us anything.
  It was interesting, the report that was suppressed by the 
administration for a year, that revealed we actually would have done 
more for energy supplies in this country, rather than lavishing tax 
breaks on the most profitable corporations in the world, the oil 
companies, selling the most profitable product, oil and gas, we would 
have been farther ahead just buying it up.
  By our redirecting these investments, we can help this nascent 
technology grow around the country and we can have unleashed the 
potential of making a difference and allowing the free market to work 
after we level the playing field, after we enable them.
  As you indicated, we are probably going to need to have some rules of 
the game to be able to jump-start these markets. But I really 
appreciate what you are talking about here.
  I was in over a dozen States this last fall working on behalf of a 
number of our new colleagues, including in Ohio. I am intrigued that 
they to a person are concerned about global warming, to a person they 
understand before they become Members of this body what you are talking 
about here, and it makes me think that we have a real opportunity to 
tap some creative energy in this body to finally, as I say, stop 
talking about it and actually do something.
  Mr. INSLEE. I would like to note that when Mr. Blumenauer talks about 
leveling the playing field, I think that is very, very important. 
Because when you look at these entrepreneurs, small businessmen and 
women that maybe have 10, 15, or 20 employees who are working out of 
their garage or a little warehouse they have rented somewhere and they 
are developing some new way. For instance, there is a company called 
Fiber Forge in Colorado, and they are developing a new way to use 
composites to build the body of an automobile that can be four times 
stronger than steel and weigh 30 to 40 percent as much.
  Now, the challenge in doing this, we are building a composite 
airplane, the first one ever, the Boeing 787, but the challenge is how 
do you do that quickly in mass manufacturing, because it takes a lot of 
hand labor right now. Well, here is a little company called Fiber Forge 
and they are developing a way to manufacture this using mass production 
methods that will decrease the cost so you can build cars someday, the 
body of a car, out of composites that are stronger and weighs about 
half as much. Do not hold me to that exact number, but significantly 
less. But they are not getting subsidies, tax breaks, or help, whereas 
the giant oil companies of the world are getting those huge tax write-
offs given to them by Congress.
  I want to mention two other subsidies the oil and gas companies have 
that these new competitor businesses do not have. Subsidy number one. 
Probably a third of our defense budget is dedicated to the protection 
of our oil lanes to protect the oil these companies get and then sell 
to us at $3 or $2.50 a gallon. That is a multibillion dollar subsidy to 
the oil and gas industry that solar, wind, biofuels, clean coal that we 
can dig up and hopefully someday burn cleanly, they do not get that 
subsidy at all. That is number one.
  Subsidy number two. The solar people, the wind people, the clean coal 
people, the wave power people, the transit people, people who do not 
put carbon dioxide in the air, they are competing with a company that 
is using the atmosphere as a free dump. The oil and gas companies 
today, and those using dirty coal today, are using the atmosphere as a 
free dumping ground to put their carbon dioxide in and they are not 
paying a penny for it. These other business people do not have that 
subsidy.
  We have to do something about that so that there is some cost 
associated with using the air we breathe as a private dumping facility. 
When you go to the garbage dump now it costs us 25 bucks to dump a 
bunch of stuff out of your pickup into the dump, but these industries 
can put it into our air for free.

[[Page 50]]

  Now, we fixed that with sulfur dioxide and we fixed that with nitrous 
oxide, we have a cap and trade system, but there is a giant loophole, a 
giant loophole that these companies use for carbon dioxide. It is the 
most serious pollutant in the world today, but there is a loophole in 
our laws that does not impose any cost associated with putting that 
pollutant into our atmosphere. That needs to get fixed as well.
  Now, we are going to have a long discussion about the best way to do 
that, but we have to do it.
  I would yield to Ms. Kaptur.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I want to agree with what the gentleman is saying, and 
look back at the last century, which was the century of hydrocarbons. 
This century will be the century of carbohydrates and unlocking the 
power of the carbohydrate molecule in a way we have never understood it 
before.
  Those who came before us were on this track but got derailed from it. 
In the early part of the 20th century, in our district, we had a car 
that was kind of famous called the Clyde car. It was built by the Clyde 
Bicycle Works, and it was built around 1898 or 1902, somewhere in 
there. You see this Clyde car and you look at the steering wheel and it 
has two levers on it. One lever is for alcohol-based fuel. You know, 
they knew how to build stills back then. And the other is for 
petroleum-based fuel. And I have been amazed to open the trunk of the 
car and see two different fuel tanks and think, my gosh, how did we 
move from that, which was what the gentleman was talking about, choice 
at the pumps and choice of vehicles, and where we are today. Because 
certain people made certain choices.
  I just mention that particular example and say that as our industries 
and our small businesses try to bring up these new technologies, what 
the gentlemen are saying tonight, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. 
Holt about financing and the tax aspects of this, if you look at 
certain farmers in Ohio who have tried let's say to raise the capital 
to build a plant, amazing things are happening that are not so good out 
there.
  The big buck players come in and they offer people on the board money 
so they never bring up that production, because there is an effort by 
those who are currently big buck dealers, in alcohol-based fuels, let's 
say, to want to control the market just like the oil companies are 
controlling the market. We see that some farmers do not have the 
organizational structure that they need in order to own some of this so 
that our rural communities across America will be able to find new 
value added and lift themselves to a new economic future.
  I think, and I am not sure that everyone on the Agriculture Committee 
agrees with me on this yet, but we need some type of loan guarantee 
program or long-term financing in a structure like the Federal Land 
Banks or our Rural Electrics, which we started years ago, so that we 
have a system that is long term and permits them to stay in business so 
that some big buck operator does not come in, drive the price down in a 
given small market, and not permit them to be able to bring up and let 
this industry flower.
  So the tax and financing aspects that we have been talking about are 
very, very important.
  I also just wanted to say something about the science, as a member of 
the Agriculture Committee. It is amazing that in 2007, we do not know, 
in terms of row crop production, how to get the most yield out of a 
carbohydrate-based plant and a planting system that does the least 
damage to the atmosphere and yields the most combustible product.

                              {time}  2045

  For example, everyone is into ethanol from corn because we have 
subsidized corn up to here. But what about beans that have more oil? 
What about canola? What about castor? We stopped growing castor beans 
because of the by-product of ricin. But could we biogenetically take 
ricin out of castor beans and get more oil per acre?
  We have got to do the science of planting, and we are just at the 
beginning of that age. We only have a glimmer of what that could be 
like. This is a major area for research where we could make a huge 
difference.
  Mr. INSLEE. I just want to comment on that. I think basically a way 
to say this is that our current biofuels economy, which is very 
productive, and I believe is at least a small improvement on net 
CO2, is really a first generation of biofuels. We have a 
second and third generation that are very close to coming.
  One of them is this cellulosic ethanol that I have talked about. 
There is a company called Logen, there are several other companies 
doing this, to use a cellulosic method in an enhanced way of breaking 
open the cell to get at the carbohydrates. When we do this, this second 
generation of biofuels is really going to kick in and make this 
competitive.
  I want to mention one thing before I yield to Mr. Holt, and that is 
we have just Democrats participating in this discussion. But our fellow 
Republicans are also involved in this discussion. I, myself, and others 
are talking to some of our Republican colleagues, developing a bill to 
try to enhance this second generation of ethanol.
  We do want to make this, and believe we can make this, a bipartisan 
effort now that we have new leadership that will free us from the 
chains of the oil and gas companies that have shackled the Congress to 
date. We are going to have some colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle work with us, too.
  I yield to Mr. Holt.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. For years, ethanol was 
dismissed as a net energy loser. It cost more energy to grow the crops 
and ferment them and produce useful fuel; it took more fuel than it 
provided. It was a net energy user. So it was easy to dismiss that and 
not invest much money in distribution systems and so forth.
  Then, because there were not distribution systems, there was not much 
motivation to develop more efficient catalytic processes, to work with 
the waste, as you would be doing with cellulosic ethanol, for example. 
It really was, if we may mix an agricultural metaphor here, a chicken 
and egg problem, and we need to step in.
  This is the sort of thing that the government can do at low cost 
without picking winners and losers by actually providing more choice, 
by making it possible for people to distribute the fuel as the new 
technology makes it economical and efficient to produce that fuel. It 
is a matter of investment in research and investment in infrastructure. 
Some of this is done through incentives, some of it is done through 
demonstration projects, some of it is done through direct investment of 
research and development. We can break out of this self-defeating 
chicken and egg cycle, or chicken and egg restriction.
  Mr. INSLEE. I want to note too, as we do that, we want to do in a way 
that is fiscally responsible. One of the things we have done is to pay 
for these things by repealing some of these tax breaks that have gone 
to the oil and gas companies, and then shifting them over to these 
investments, to do this in a fiscally responsible way.
  We also want to do it in a way that helps businesses rather than 
hurts them. Some of the incentive programs that have been done in the 
past have been done in a way to ensure their failure.
  For instance, some previous Congresses have been in the terrible 
habit when they do tax incentives that are intended to help businesses 
grow, they have done it for one year at a time or two years at a time; 
and venture capitalists, and I have talked to many of them, say we are 
not going to make multibillion dollar investments, realizing the rug 
can be pulled out from under us.
  That has been done because Congress has tried to hide the deficit, so 
they have tried to make these things seem like they are short term.
  We only have about two more minutes. I would just like to yield to 
anyone who has a closing comment.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. If I could briefly comment, I appreciate what you 
have each indicated in terms of the new generation of dealing with 
biofuels. I think this is an example of how we move forward.

[[Page 51]]

  You are absolutely right in terms of being able to zero in on the 
research, to squeeze out of this, to have tax incentives that are 
uniform, predictable and deal with the second and third generation of 
ethanol development and dealing with what might happen in terms of 
unlocking the power of biology here.
  I have been struck by how there are many opportunities for us in the 
new farm bill to redirect, what is it, $23 billion of subsidy at this 
point that flows increasingly to a very small number of farmers, often 
corporate farms or large ones in a small limited area in a small, 
limited number of crops. We have an opportunity to unlock that, help 
farmers with their energy production, allow more farmers into it and 
find out how we unlock the power of this ingenuity.
  Mr. INSLEE. We just have a few seconds. I would like to just make a 
closing comment.
  First, I would thank my colleagues and say that I really do believe 
this is a historic moment for the industrial base and agricultural base 
of America, which is today's date, to start to move to a new base away 
from just a dirty fossil fuel-based system to a clean energy system. We 
are starting to do this starting today. We are going to join 
Republicans, hopefully, in finding a bipartisan way to do it.
  We can tell people that the genius of Americans is in these new wind 
sources, wind turbines, solar cells, transit, flex-fuel vehicles, plug-
in vehicles, cellulosic ethanol, wave power, geothermal, fuel efficient 
appliances, energy efficient homes; this job is going to get done by a 
new Congress and it is a bright day for the country.

                          ____________________