[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14687-14694]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          CREATION OF NEW JOBS THROUGH CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kilroy). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, we are truly on the verge of a historic 
moment. We're moving closer and closer to finally achieving legislation 
that will put us on the right path towards true energy independence and 
true environmental protection. Legislation that, at the same time, will 
grow our economy through clean energy jobs and promote an investment in 
cutting-edge American technology all while addressing the costly 
damages to our public health, economy and environment that is coming 
and will come from a changing climate.
  The Republican Party just doesn't seem to get it. They don't seem to 
understand that the American people know that the cost of inaction is 
far higher than the cost of action. The same scare tactics and lack of 
faith in science and in American innovation which lost them the last 
election won't fool the American people. Madam Speaker, the minority 
party has chosen to put this debate in oversimplified and disingenuous 
terms, and that's truly sad. They've decided to call our clean energy 
future a tax because they don't think the American people can figure 
out the truth, that endangering our economy, our public health and our 
environment is what is truly taxing our Nation.
  Madam Speaker, what the Republicans are espousing is a tax of 
inaction. The Republican inaction tax will cost our country many, many 
middle-class careers. The Republican inaction tax will mean harm to 
family farms, harm to water sources, and harm to the fastest-growing 
sector of American jobs, clean energy infrastructure. This Republican 
inaction tax means higher energy costs for families who won't be able 
to weatherize their homes or invest in energy efficiency. The 
Republican inaction tax will pass along growing debt to our children by 
leaving behind opportunities to invest in innovative sectors and 
businesses that we are promoting in this American Clean Energy and 
Security Act. The Republican inaction tax will mean further devastation 
to our real estate market, as melting polar ice caps and rising sea 
levels could cost our Nation hundreds of billions of dollars in lost 
real estate value. This Republican inaction tax will cost the American 
people nearly $1.9 trillion annually, or 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, by 
2100. It's time we have a real debate on this issue, not rhetorical 
oversimplifications that fail to serve our country but with the high-
minded debate that we all deserve. It's time that we discuss what's 
really in this bill.
  I would like to welcome my colleague and good friend from New Mexico, 
Representative Martin Heinrich, who has a lot to say about what this 
bill has to offer.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I want to thank my friend from Colorado.
  Madam Speaker, we formed the Sustainable Energy and Environment 
Coalition in the 111th Congress because we believe in America's promise 
to become the global leader in energy and environmental strategies of 
the 21st century. Leadership and innovation is the hallmark of American 
success. In 1961 when President John F. Kennedy said that our country 
would lead the world by landing an American on the Moon, within 8 years 
his goal was achieved with the Apollo project. Today that same 
innovation is present in our emerging clean energy economy.
  Madam Speaker, the opportunity for America to create thousands of 
clean energy jobs that will build our 21st century economy cannot be 
understated. Evidence of that clean energy job growth, a key component 
of our local economic recovery, is already visible on the ground in 
communities like New Mexico's First Congressional District, which I 
represent.
  Part of this clean energy cluster growth is a result of the vast 
natural resources that New Mexico has to share. We are second in the 
Nation in solar energy capacity and 12th in the Nation for wind energy 
production potential, but we also have invested heavily in our human 
capital. One example of this success is the work being done in 
partnership with Sandia National Laboratories, which has been at the 
center of multiple renewable energy advancements across our country, 
including the creation of a high-performing biofuel that can be used in 
military aircraft. With Sandia's help, thousands of jobs in new energy 
fields have been created in our community by companies like Advent 
Solar and EMCORE, which makes concentrated solar photovoltaics. Just a 
month ago I participated in the grand opening of a $100 million Schott 
Solar manufacturing plant in Albuquerque, which is

[[Page 14688]]

on track to eventually employ 1,400 people. On the west side of the 
First Congressional District, Solar Array Ventures is building a 
factory that will employ 1,000 people; and in the rural east side of 
our congressional district, hundreds of people have been at work with 
good-paying jobs on the near complete 100-megawatt High Lonesome Mesa 
wind project.
  Madam Speaker, these jobs are part of a thriving clean energy cluster 
that is leading our community towards economic recovery. I'm proud to 
report that Albuquerque's clean energy job growth recently earned us a 
second-place national ranking in Kiplinger's 2009 list. Albuquerque was 
recognized for leading the Nation in key job growth areas of tomorrow. 
The potential to create these kinds of clean energy jobs across our 
Nation cannot be denied, and I am proud that the 111th Congress has 
already started investing in our clean energy future.
  In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we invested more than 
$60 billion to help jump-start the clean energy jobs of tomorrow. These 
investments include building transmission lines to carry solar and wind 
to communities in need, improving battery technology, training a new 
clean energy workforce, and increasing energy efficiency to help our 
country use less energy while we strengthen our economy.
  I'm proud to have sponsored the Clean Energy Promotion Act, a bill 
that will expedite the review of wind and solar energy projects on our 
public Bureau of Land Management lands. I also cosponsored the national 
renewable energy standard legislation that is included in the current 
legislation to increase our country's generation of energy from 
renewable sources.
  Madam Speaker, in New Mexico's First Congressional District and 
across the country, we are at a crossroads. We can either cede 
leadership and clean energy innovation to nations like Germany, which 
has the highest solar generation of any country in the world even 
though it only has the same average solar exposure as the State of 
Alaska; or we can jump-start the American clean energy industry, 
spurred by the same spirit of innovation that put us on the Moon, to 
put Americans to work in clean energy careers, building solar panels 
and wind turbines. Let's choose the path of innovation, the path that 
has led to American success throughout our history. Now is the time to 
take bold action on our energy policy.
  Mr. POLIS. I have a question on that. I've heard supporters of this 
Republican inaction tax trying to argue that this bill costs jobs, that 
somehow this is going to be bad for the economy. A lot of what you've 
been talking about, I mean, a solar plant hiring 1,400 people in your 
district, job growth on the infrastructure side. It certainly sounds to 
me like by passing this bill, it's going to lead to even more job 
growth in your district.
  Is that what you've been finding?
  Mr. HEINRICH. I believe that's absolutely the case. In fact, what 
we've seen is even in the midst of this recession, the good news on our 
horizon has been these quality high-tech jobs in the renewable energy 
sector.
  Mr. POLIS. Earlier on, as we were walking to the floor, we were 
talking about American ingenuity and innovation, and we talked about 
what's possible with solar cars. I thought maybe you could share with 
us this story of what's possible. I mean, the strength of America has 
always been innovation and ingenuity. I think this bill is really 
playing to our strength as a country in terms of what's possible.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I couldn't agree more. I have to say, as someone who 
got my degree in mechanical engineering back in the mid-nineties, I 
actually participated in a solar car team, just a group of college 
students that got together in the early nineties, built a carbon fiber 
lightweight solar-powered vehicle that we raced across the United 
States against teams from Stanford and Michigan and other colleges 
around the country. I always thought to myself, if we could do that in 
1993, 15 years ago, a bunch of college students who didn't even have 
our degrees yet, then think of the potential that we have today with 
the technology and the real support of policymakers like yourself. I 
think the opportunities for science and for business are absolutely 
endless.
  Mr. POLIS. I see we've been joined by our colleague from New York 
(Mr. Tonko). Would you like to add to this discussion?

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. TONKO. Sure. Absolutely. Let me thank you, Mr. Polis, for 
managing our discussion this evening here on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. It is a pleasure to join you. I know you have been an 
outspoken voice for greening up our thinking as it comes to energy and 
the environment and the economy, three areas that are critical right 
now that face a crisis of some dimension, and we can resolve those 
crises simply by moving forward with progressive policies.
  So I thank you for providing the leadership here this evening on the 
floor and to join with you and our friend and colleague Representative 
Heinrich because, you know, you are surrounded here by two mechanical 
engineers in background, education background.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I believe that doesn't happen on the floor of the House 
of Representatives very often.
  Mr. TONKO. It doesn't. We are usually vastly outnumbered. So it is 
good for us to step back and look at these issues from an academic 
perspective and to respond to them in technological terms. That is real 
leadership. And the President, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, 
leaders here across the board here in the House and rank-and-file 
Members have joined together to speak forcefully about just what we can 
accomplish if we set our sights on this innovation economy that is 
sparked by a green energy arena.
  The numbers of jobs that we can create in this clean energy career 
ladder are tremendous. It is a way to provide opportunities for those 
emerging members of the workforce and to train and retrain our existing 
workforce. As we look at the opportunities out there, they are immense.
  Representative Polis, you talked about the fear and despair approach 
taken by some as they try to message in very negative terms the work 
that is being done in this area. Well, a $475 billion bill that finds 
money going to foreign imports for fossil-based fuels could be 
referenced as a tax. We might say we are paying our bills for the 
energy supply we need, but it is taxing our economy and, more 
importantly, it is taxing households, families that could otherwise be 
producing here in America the supplies we need with American jobs, 
American know-how, American intellect.
  You know, as I listened to our Representative from New Mexico, as 
Representative Heinrich spoke of that global race back from the decades 
ago, from the sixties, having heard Sputnik over and over again in the 
elementary classroom and having seen us in a race somewhat narrower 
than today's race would be, Russia, the U.S. all competing to land a 
person on the moon. But a vision shared by a very eloquent, articulate 
leader of this Nation, John F. Kennedy, allowed us to come together as 
a nation in multipartisan frameworks and provide the kind of energy 
that is required to get us to think in those positive and progressive 
terms, and it stretched our thinking, it provided loftiness to the 
outcomes, and it created career opportunities for many.
  That same race, global race, is upon us today, and it is not like we 
have a choice to enter into the race. We have no choice but to be part 
of it, and the pressure is on for us to win.
  When China invests $12.7 million per hour in its greening-up 
opportunities, that is a signal to us that we can and we must do better 
than we are today. And whoever emerges, whichever country emerges the 
leader, the winner of that race, will then be that go-to nation that 
will export energy intellect, energy innovation, energy ideas. The 
energy capital that we can build will be extremely valuable for all of 
our American families.
  I, as you know, had worked at NYSERDA before I entered here. I had

[[Page 14689]]

chaired the Energy Committee in the New York State Assembly for 15 of 
my 25 years in the Assembly, and then went to assume the role of 
president and CEO at the New York State Energy Research and Development 
Authority.
  Projects that found us utilizing our wind, our sun, our Earth, our 
soil and our water enabled us to create energy supplies for New York 
State. Hydrokinetic power that was produced simply by the turbulence of 
the East River along the shoreline of the Island of Manhattan is there 
as a demonstration project, an R&D project, that as a prototype holds 
promise, great promise, when deployed into the manufacturing and 
commercial sectors.
  The opportunity for geothermal, where I witnessed at the Culinary 
Institute of America six new dorms, lodges as they are referred to, 
utilizing geothermal as an energy source, and using the constant 
temperature of the Earth far below us was a simple and novel idea, 
almost cave-like in its concept, but it is providing modern-day usage. 
And certainly wind, solar, PV, all being utilized in New York State, as 
much as 1,100 megawatts worth of wind power.
  So this is possible. It is very possible. And the jobs that we can 
create are countless as we go forward, and it provides energy security, 
energy independence, and therefore I believe is critically important to 
us, to our national security. We won't be putting our sons and 
daughters in harm's way because we won't be in the battle zone fighting 
over the commodity of oil and fossil-based fuels.
  Mr. POLIS. If the gentleman will yield, what you are talking about 
sounds great, the great spirit of American innovation, jobs being 
created, improving our security. I mean, do you think that if we fail 
to enact this policy, that will be a blow to a lot of this activity, 
economic activity, security activity, everything you are talking about?
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. And, you know, we will have to pay some other 
nation for their ideas. When we spoke the other day with the SEEC 
Caucus, of which both of you made mention, with the Sustainable Energy 
and Environment Coalition, the Green Dogs, so-to-speak, in the 111th 
Congress, we heard from the most recent energy minister, past energy 
minister, that a lot of American know-how and patents were being 
utilized in Denmark. Well, if we are coming up with this intellectual 
capacity and this brain power, what a shame if we don't invest it for 
our own benefit.
  So the time is now to move. The time is long past that we have a 
comprehensive energy plan for this Nation. And it was one of the 
motivations for me to run for Congress, so that we could come here and 
do those sound policies that will move us into a new era of energy 
thinking, eclipsing us from a political generation of denial.
  Mr. POLIS. You know, I think with regard to all of the great economic 
activity you are talking about, when we are talking about the cost of 
not taking action, it is not only an environmental cost, it is not only 
the direct impact of global climate change, we are also talking about 
disrupting a lot of these science and research, economic activities, 
undermining our own national security, all these other costs.
  So it is frustrating when people try to say, oh, this costs money. 
Well, you have to look at the cost of not taking action, which is far 
greater, orders of magnitude greater, than what we are talking about 
here, which is a very practical way to boost this industry and create 
green jobs.
  Mr. TONKO. Well, one of the great investments at NYSERDA in the State 
context that I functioned was a huge investment in R&D. And you need to 
see that R&D, research and development, and deployment, I would add, 
are economic development tools. You are using very bright minds with 
clever ideas, putting that lab experiment together.
  Then we need to further commit to the deployment stage. You cannot 
just research and develop. You need to take that success story, of 
which there are many, and deploy them into manufacturing and the 
commercial use of those ideas. That is what this agenda is about. And 
it is not maintaining the spirit of $475 billion per year of American 
dollars, call it a tax, call it an investment, call it paying your 
bills. Whatever it is, it is cash leaving us to help another economy 
that isn't providing any benefit because these are, in many cases, 
unstable governments and some of the most troubled spots in the world.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to welcome our good friend Mr. Connolly from 
Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I am so pleased to join my fellow Green 
Dogs to talk about the subject. I couldn't help but pick up, if I may, 
to our friend from New York, Mr. Tonko, the point he was making about 
the power of research and development, R&D dollars, in innovative 
technology.
  Let's just take the potential power of the advanced battery research. 
What could that do? Well, in the automotive industry, advanced lithium 
batteries, for example, could get you plug-in hybrid vehicles that get 
an average equivalent of 100 miles per gallon. If every vehicle in 
America got an average of 100 miles per gallon, you would almost wipe 
out the need for any imported oil in the United States of America. It 
is not science fiction. It is around the corner, but it needs an extra 
investment. It is an investment with an enormous potential return that 
would more than return dollars to U.S. taxpayers and, of course, 
contribute to the economy.
  Similarly, advanced battery research is desperately needed to 
essentially bring the solar industry in the United States to that next 
step. What we lack in solar right now is the ability to really store 
the sun. And if we could have a breakthrough, and, again, it is not 
rocket science, it is not science fiction, if we could have a 
breakthrough in advanced battery research so that we can extend storage 
capacity, so on sunny days we can store that energy on overcast days, 
especially in climates that aren't as warm as, say, the Southwest where 
our friend Mr. Heinrich comes from in New Mexico, we could absolutely 
transform the solar industry and make it a practical either supplement 
or alternative for households and businesses all across the United 
States.
  What could that do in terms of job creation and reviving the 
manufacturing sector of the United States? An almost endless return on 
a very wise investment of dollars.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Polis, if I might, to the comments made by 
Representative Connolly of Virginia, and I thank him for his insight, 
to those comments I would add that as we achieve those efficiency 
outcomes, we are also cleaning the environment. We have the moral 
responsibility to make certain that our children, our grandchildren, 
generations that will follow us, do not get handicapped by some sort of 
situation out there like climate change, global warming, the carbon 
footprint, that will destroy our environment.
  The air we breathe is essential, and as stewards today of the 
environment that we inherited, we must pass it on to further 
generations, future generations, in a state that is acceptable, clean 
and better, improved, so that we can achieve that.
  While we are on the battery situation, I would just make quick 
mention of GE. Their corporate headquarters are in Schenectady, which 
is housed within the 21st Congressional District within New York State, 
which I represent.
  GE recently announced its intentions to build an advanced battery 
manufacturing center in the capital district region of New York. That 
will provide some 350 to 400 jobs for a state-of-the-art battery that 
will deal with sodium chloride and nickel as a combination, adding to 
the diversity. There are lithium-ion batteries that are spoken of and 
other sorts of batteries that are being encouraged. This provides for 
diversity, which is sound for our mix. It is good for our energy 
choices.
  That battery will be able to be used for heavy vehicles. That is 
important. It can be used for intermittent energy storage, and it can 
be utilized also for energy generation.
  So the transportation sector, the energy generation and energy 
storage

[[Page 14690]]

areas can all be addressed by this battery innovation. That is the key 
that can unlock the door to immense potential and opportunities of all 
kinds.
  So we are at the cusp, I believe, of tremendous discoveries here that 
will allow us to compete effectively in this global race to be the 
energy go-to nation.
  Mr. POLIS. When we hear about all these wonderful things, battery 
storage technologies, jobs being created in New Mexico and New York, 
clean electric vehicles, what we are talking about and the nexus to why 
this is important and what American families need to know is the 
American Clean Energy and Security Act is the enabling law that allows 
all of this to occur. All of this great stuff that we are talking 
about, the job creation, the clean cars, the storage, this will all be 
dealt a huge blow if Congress fails to act. That is why the stakes for 
this debate are so important.
  Mr. HEINRICH. You know, I think this whole issue of research and 
development is absolutely critical, because we have fallen behind the 
entire world in things that we were at the very front edge of just a 
few years ago. We can do so much better. And when you look around at 
the American innovation in New York, in New Mexico, in Virginia and 
Colorado, there is no more innovative people in the world than the 
American entrepreneur.
  You know, I was lucky to have the majority leader visit my district 
last year, so I took him out to Sandia National Labs, one of the places 
involved in basic research and development, that is rebuilding our 
energy economy and pushing us forward to the leadership position in the 
world that we deserve.
  One of the things that we looked at Sandia National Labs was actually 
a process where they take solar energy and a carbon dioxide feedstock, 
what is currently a problem, it is pollution, it is warming our planet, 
and utilize that to make liquid fuels, high-density energy fuels that 
can then be used as an energy storage medium, just like the advanced 
batteries you were talking about.
  There are people doing research today on a much more efficient method 
of hydrolysis that would then utilize hydrogen as the output, basically 
do in the energy field what trees do every day, take sunlight and then 
store that as energy in a way that you can use.

                              {time}  2100

  Take sunlight, and then store that as energy in a way that you can 
use. And if any country in the world should be leading these efforts, 
it's the United States. And it's time for us to take back our rightful 
position, leading the world on the future of clean jobs. But we can 
only do that through changes in policy. If we sit back and watch as the 
battery research moves to Korea and Japan and other places, we will be 
buying the advanced vehicles from those countries. And instead, we need 
to be supporting the advance battery research that's being done in 
places like New York.
  In my own home district we were doing research on batteries at Sandia 
National Laboratories to make sure that we do a better job increasing 
the density and the safety of these things. So, this is a huge 
opportunity for us.
  As you said, it's a job creator. And the cost, the opportunity cost 
of not acting, really hits us in the West, I think, probably more than 
anyplace except for maybe where you have a coast line. We are reliant 
for our economy on water, on the water that falls as snow pack, just 
like it does in your district in Colorado, Congressman Polis, and that 
water flows down hills and it runs our farms and it runs our factories. 
It keeps our rivers alive.
  And yet we have seen a dramatic decrease in the amount of snow pack 
that actually reaches places like Albuquerque because it's evaporating 
earlier, you know, temperatures are rising. The Tehemas Mountains in 
New Mexico have seen something like a seven-plus degree Fahrenheit 
swing in temperatures over time. That's impacting forest fires. It's 
less water for all of us to use for economic activity. And so the cost 
of not doing anything, of not implementing this bill, which is 
basically an Apollo project for energy independence and jobs in this 
country, is so much greater than the cost of acting.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. If my colleague would yield, because the 
point you've both been making about the need for that competitive edge 
for American industry is really underscored by the various American 
companies that, in fact, have endorsed this legislation. Let's just 
take the automotive sector. Ford, Chrysler, GM, John Deere, Caterpillar 
have all endorsed this legislation. There's a reason for that. They 
understand that to stand still with existing technology is not going to 
cut it. They're going to continue to lose market share, and they're 
going to lose to foreign competition.
  If I may, I'd just like to read into the Record some of the other 
companies, especially in the energy sector. And the reason I want to 
read these names into the Record is because so often we hear from our 
friends on the other side of the aisle, this is going to destroy 
American business as we know it. Well, that would come as news to the 
following list of companies who've enthusiastically endorsed this 
specific bill. Duke Energy, coal, by the way, represents 75 percent of 
Duke's portfolio. American Electric Power; Edison Electric Institute; 
Exelon; PG&E Corporation; FPL Group in Florida; Entergy; Austin Energy; 
Constellation Energy; Seattle City Light; Public Service Enterprise; 
P&M resources in New Mexico, Mr. Heinrich; Shell Oil; Conoco; BP 
America; Entergy Energy; GE; Alcoa; Dupont; Dow Chemical; Johnson & 
Johnson; Rio Tinto; Siemens; National Venture Capital Association.
  These are American companies that understand the point you were 
making a little bit earlier, Mr. Polis, that to stand still is to lose 
ground; and that actually, we have an enormous opportunity here to 
regain America's competitive edge, create jobs and, once again, lead 
the world in innovative technologies and techniques. But we've got to 
make that initial step. This bill creates that framework.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Connolly, you know, one of the things that Mr. 
Heinrich talked about, he said, you know, if these jobs aren't created 
here, they're going to be created elsewhere. The research will be done 
elsewhere. The fact that the American industry, the companies that you 
recognize, who are, many of them American-based companies, feel that 
this is good policy. These are global problems we're facing. Some way 
or other the world is going to need to wean itself off fossil fuels. 
Don't you think that this policy helps make sure that those solutions 
happen here in this country?
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Absolutely. And the bill takes care, where 
there are trade-sensitive and energy-intensive sensitive industries, to 
give them a transition period of time, in some cases a very generous 
transition period of time in which to get themselves competitive again.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Tonko.
  Mr. TONKO. Sometimes the issue comes across in such a complex picture 
that it's difficult for people to get their arms around what the 
discussion is all about. To repeat what I mentioned earlier about the 
hundreds of billions of dollars that we have been spending that go to 
foreign nations that import to us these fossil-based fuels, we need to 
see this as an embracing of the American intellect, to take ideas that 
are there shelf-ready and put them to work for us. It's, quite simply, 
American power to power America. It is providing our opportunity to 
utilize the American workforce to produce this power that then powers 
this country to do all that it needs to do.
  It provides great opportunities for manufacturing sectors, and for 
our business communities, small and large, because I witness firsthand 
what happens when we retrofit these facilities, even our dairy farms in 
New York State, with state-of-the-art opportunities for efficiency. 
Where you need to use fuel for the power that you're using, let's use 
it efficiently. That's good for the environment; it's good for the 
economy. It's good for the energy equation.
  But in many cases we'll be able to produce that power we need with no

[[Page 14691]]

fuel cost. So the $475 billion that has been spent annually that goes 
outside this Nation's boundaries is a fuel cost. We won't have that 
fuel cost when we benignly utilize our wind, our sun, our soil and our 
water.
  And I think that's an effective way to approach a situation where we 
allow for the brain power of this country that is invested in, when 
people choose their career paths. We want to make certain that all that 
investment in the classroom and on the college campuses and in the 
private sector through its R&D opportunities of workforce training and 
development, we want to put that to work here. And we have those 
available solutions. We need to go forward with that sort of concept.
  And, again, it takes a vision. I believe this public, the American 
public, joins in the efforts when a vision is painted for them. It's 
been painted in bold green measure by President Obama. His 
administration is taking us to a new level of thinking. The Speaker of 
the House, the leadership in this House, the Members, the rank and file 
Members of the majority know this is the right thing to do. And it 
takes that boldness of vision and that determination, the integrity to 
move us to this new economy, and it will happen.
  Mr. POLIS. So what you're saying is, you know, rather than, we're 
sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to Saudi Arabia, to the 
Arab countries, to Venezuela. That money is gone from America when it's 
gone. And we send it over there and that's fueling their economy. We 
can recapture some of that money here and create clean energy here.
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. Mr. Polis, I would add this: As Representative 
in Colorado, like any of us as Representatives, we have seen far too 
many of our sons and daughters lost in the efforts to, in our 
involvement in the Mid East. Some of this money is going to those 
nations that we are now fighting against with the war on terrorism and 
the war in the Mid East. And so it really behooves us to think in newer 
terms, in bolder terms, in ways that build our independence, our 
security and our national security, which is critically important to us 
as we speak.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Heinrich.
  Mr. HEINRICH. That word, independence, I think, is absolutely 
critical because this legislation will give us the independence that, 
as Americans, we crave. And I can say, you know, one of the pieces of 
this is renewable energy portfolio standard, something that says all 
the utilities are going to create a certain portion of their power from 
renewable and clean sources, we've had that for a number of years in 
New Mexico; and it's worked remarkably well. In concert with 
photovoltaic technology, this spring, you know, starting March or 
April, I started getting a credit from P&M resources that you mentioned 
earlier because I've got solar panels tied into the system, and during 
the day when we're not home, we're selling power back to the grid at 
the very time when everybody's turning on their air conditioner. It is 
innovative solutions like that that are already working in so many 
places that are going to give people freedom from those energy bills 
and independence from this international and foreign oil that sucks so 
much money out of our economy in the United States.
  Mr. POLIS. You know, and a good point you raise, you're right. New 
Mexico and also my home State of Colorado have really been leaders in 
terms of instituting renewable energy standards, also instituting 
incentives for solar technology. You know, at our State level and 
probably yours, the opponents made the same arguments. They said, oh, 
this is going to drive jobs out of Colorado and New Mexico. This is 
going to hurt the economy.
  Well, here we are several years down the road. This has made both of 
our economies stronger. I mean, isn't this a great success story in New 
Mexico?
  Mr. HEINRICH. Absolutely. And always better to be the leader that's 
creating jobs than the State or the country that's following and 
watching those jobs go someplace else.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I might add to the point you're making, Mr. 
Polis, in my State of Virginia, for example, we have a gubernatorial 
election going on right now, and one of the candidates, the Republican 
nominee, has talked about drill now, right off the shore of Virginia. 
Maybe that makes sense; maybe it doesn't. But the wind power potential 
off the shore of Virginia dwarfs any estimates of what possible oil and 
gas reserves there might be offshore and could create jobs and could 
actually make Virginia an enormous net exporter to the Northeast and 
the Mid-Atlantic of a renewable source of energy forever.
  Mr. POLIS. You know, Colorado is in this boat and I think New Mexico 
too. We are blessed with some natural resources, with natural gas and 
with oil. And I have to tell you, it's a mixed blessing.
  First of all, it's highly cyclical. We've been through several cycles 
in Colorado where there's been oil boom times. Everybody was riding 
high. Three years later the price crashes: everybody's out of work, 
everybody's looking for work.
  We are also using a nonrenewable energy source. You take it out of 
the ground, it's gone. We're also destroying one of our other revenue 
sources, and it's frequently at odds with the tourism industry, with 
preserving our natural heritage of great value to Colorado residents, 
the quality of life that attracts people to New Mexico and Colorado in 
the first place.
  I mean, you know, we can have and we do have now, thanks to the 
leadership in our State of Governor Ritter and, in fact, the leadership 
of our voters who passed a number of these initiatives overwhelmingly. 
The renewable energy standard was passed by Colorado voters with over 
60 percent of the vote. They didn't buy the arguments of the other 
side. It's even more popular today, 5 years down the road, than it was 
at the time because people have seen that effect. We can have a more 
stable economy. We can create jobs, and we can promote a clean 
environment all at the same time.
  Mr. TONKO. Representative Polis, I believe that even T. Boone Pickens 
has said we are not going to drill our way out of this given crisis. 
This energy crisis needs to be addressed in a constructive way. The 
constructive way reminds us that there are ways to produce power, as 
you suggest, without a fuel cost. And then our fuel of choice needs to 
be energy efficiency. That plant which we never built simply because we 
have reduced demand by a given order of megawatts is then allowing us 
to avoid the construction of a larger facility. And we can do that.
  When you look at the size of this Nation, the population, the 
business sector, any 1 percent of improvement translates into a huge 
supply, as Representative Connolly mentioned earlier, of power saved. 
And the demand side of the equation was not addressed by the previous 
administration. It was supply, supply, supply: How much more can we 
create and let people consume? We have some of the most gluttonous 
consumption in the entire world. And we know that there are ways to 
allow us to be more efficient and to provide those savings by 
addressing demand-side solutions. And I think that's where this plan is 
taking us also.
  Mr. POLIS. I'm really happy that my good friend Mr. Tonko from New 
York brought up the demand side in conserving energy. There are many 
Federal energy efficiency provisions that are part of the American 
Clean Energy and Security Act. And in terms of what they mean to 
American families, the estimates are that American families will save 
$750 per year per household within 10 years because of the energy 
efficiency provisions of this bill. You know, what would you do with 
another $750 a year? That is the savings the average American family 
will have as a result of the energy efficiencies presented in this 
bill.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Would my colleague yield on that point, 
because that's such a good point you're bringing up, Mr. Polis, because 
we hear from the other side, seemingly deliberate misinformation on the 
floor of this House. And the figure constantly cited is a little over 
$3,100; this is going to cost everybody $3,100 a year. The opposite is 
true, as you just indicated. There's a new study the American Council 
for Energy Efficient Economy

[[Page 14692]]

just issued that says that the Federal energy efficiency provisions in 
this bill will, in fact, save $750 per household by 2020, as you 
indicated, and $3,900 per household by 2030. So maybe our Republican 
colleagues just have their numbers inverted.

                              {time}  2115

  I might point out that that magical figure of $3,100 per year that 
they cite, and derive this bill as a cap-and-tax bill, not a cap-and-
trade bill, is based on a study done by an MIT professor--a rather 
obscure study. And interestingly, that professor, the author of that 
study, has written the Republican leadership of this body objecting to 
the use of this study, saying they vastly overstate any potential costs 
that in fact might accrue to consumers. And it is based on faulty 
analysis as well.
  The provisions of this bill are carefully drafted so that any 
increase in utility costs, for example, that aren't already protected 
by the provisions in the bill would not be allowed to be passed on to 
consumers. It is patently false. And talk about not reading the bill; 
clearly our friends on the other side of the aisle either haven't read 
the bill or choose to ignore the facts therein. But there are carefully 
crafted provisions that not only protect consumers, but as our 
colleague, Mr. Polis, indicated, and as this recent study indicates, 
will in fact save, not cost, consumers hundreds of dollars--and 
ultimately thousands of dollars--every year.
  Mr. POLIS. Well, $3,900 in 20 years, and in 10 years, $750. I mean, 
that is a lot of money for American families that this bill saves right 
there.
  Mr. TONKO. And also, Representative Polis, I think it's important to 
note that controlling your destiny when it comes to energy choices, 
having those American options available, having the production here 
domestically enhanced, having the efficiency tools that we require, not 
only utilized that are shelf-ready, but to develop additional product 
lines that can create these, given opportunities, smart meters in which 
we invested this year with the stimulus package, with the Recovery Act, 
are a great way to provide for control over your energy consumption and 
your bills, to utilize off-peak where possible, and to have a smarter 
opportunity presented for us as consumers. That's all available with 
technology today.
  And as we further develop these packages that will enable consumers 
to control their energy destiny, it's a great thing as we develop this 
American power to power America. It's a wonderful concept.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Would my colleague yield just for a moment 
on that? Because this same study that Mr. Polis and I are referring to, 
I just want to read a paragraph that addresses the very point you're 
making, Mr. Tonko.
  It says, In total, the energy-efficiency provisions of H.R. 2454 
could reduce U.S. energy use by 4.4 quadrillion BTUs by 2020. These 
energy-efficiency savings are more than the annual use of 47 of the 50 
States, including your home State of New York. Moreover, such savings 
will avoid 293 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, 
the equivalent--this is astounding--of taking 49 million automobiles 
off the road every year. By 2030, these energy efficiency savings go to 
11 quadrillion BTUs, accounting for about 10 percent of projected U.S. 
energy use that year.
  This is incredible. And that's what you're getting at, that there are 
other efficiencies that can be achieved by this bill that, by the way, 
also will lead to innovation, job creation, and savings for consumers 
we haven't even calculated.
  Mr. Heinrich.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I think what my friend from Virginia is describing is 
actually a very conservative position. And I think that one of the 
ironies in all of this is when you realize that we have nonrenewable 
resources and they're very valuable--they cost us billions and billions 
of dollars in our economy--to use less of them, to stretch those out 
and to utilize them more effectively, that is a fundamentally 
conservative position, not to waste the resources that God has given 
us, but to utilize them as efficiently as we possibly can.
  You know, I remember during the campaign of 2008 there was this whole 
issue of the tire gauge, and hearing Rush Limbaugh just make fun of 
this idea that a tire gauge could be of any value at all. And when you 
think about the fact that we will fight like dogs and cats in this 
Chamber over this little postage stamp of oil and gas in the North 
Slope of Alaska, the same amount of which could be conserved in a few 
years if people would use those tire gauges, that is, I think, a 
fundamental irony in all of this.
  We're going to continue to use oil and gas; we're probably going to 
continue to use coal for a number of years. We should use those 
nonrenewable resources as conservatively as we possibly can.
  Mr. TONKO. Absolutely. And, Representative Polis, I would go back to 
an earlier statement that I made. We're all talking about how we can 
improve our economy, address our energy crisis, address our 
environmental crisis, but at the same time, we need to bear in mind 
that this is the way we draw attention to this Nation and her 
intellectual capacity, where we become the exporter of energy thinking, 
of energy ideas, of innovation. This is the strengthening of the 
economy.
  As people invest in this economy, in the American know-how, we then 
become even stronger as we develop the solutions for our air that we 
breathe, the water that we drink, and certainly the soil that we 
utilize for our own opportunities and routine opportunities throughout 
life. We can then become this go-to nation, which is as critical today, 
if not more critical, than the space race was in the Sixties, which we 
won because we committed to thinking in new terms, in bolder terms.
  Change is not easy. Change is not easy to get our arms around. But 
change is what we ought to be about as leaders of legislative policy 
that can then take this country into new orders of job development and 
energy policy.
  Mr. POLIS. The American Clean Energy and Security Act will help make 
sure that a lot of this technology is created here. We all worry about 
the trade deficit. It seems like America doesn't make anything anymore. 
It seems like we're importing everything from all over the world. Well, 
here is our opportunity to start making things again.
  I visited a company in my district 2 weeks ago. They got a big order 
from China for solar panels. They are exporting solar panels from 
Colorado to China.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Polis, right on message, I visited a 
company in my district the other day that manufactures microchips. That 
market is very cyclical. And the manufacturing capacity in the United 
States has shrunk and shrunk and shrunk. They had a factory they had to 
close in the Midwest. They are retrofitting, and they are going to make 
solar panels at this factory should we pass this bill. They are waiting 
for this bill to pass, and almost overnight they are going to start to 
manufacture solar panels.
  Mr. TONKO. And I will add, if I may, that there are those industries 
that are energy intensive and trade intensive. And those are the focal 
points that we can provide where there needs to be this assistance--if 
you can produce something at less cost, which becomes a reality if you 
provide energy retrofits that make it more efficient, some of these 
industries that are energy intensive, when improved upon, where you 
utilize, as Representative Heinrich said, your resources more wisely 
and effectively, that produces a lower cost of production of that given 
product and so it makes you more competitive in the global marketplace.
  Mr. POLIS. So you're saying that it's going to create a lot of jobs. 
But there is a family out there, and let's say they're a steelworker, 
let's say they are working in some of these industries; we can reassure 
them that this won't hurt their competitiveness in the global 
environment at all. That has been dealt with in this bill, right?
  Mr. HEINRICH. I think not only on the steel front will it help their 
competitiveness, the way it's structured

[[Page 14693]]

actually rewards them for being more efficient. We produce steel in 
this country with far less of a carbon footprint than they do in China. 
And one of the things that the incentives in this legislation does is 
it will incentivize spending money on capital investment that will 
continue to bring down the carbon footprint and increase the 
efficiency, making steel in this country more competitive worldwide in 
a way that is even compliant with the WTO. So we will actually be 
improving the competitiveness of the American steel industry instead 
of, once again, shipping those jobs and ceding them to another country.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. And to the point you're making, Mr. 
Heinrich, and yours, Mr. Polis, the legislation specifically addresses 
the steel and cement industries and provides them a very generous 
transition through the year 2025. Thereafter, the President could still 
extend that transition should he or she decide it's warranted. And if 
he or she decides it's not, it's phased out, but on a maximum of 10 
percent per year. So it is a very generous set of circumstances to make 
sure that our domestic steel industry and our domestic cement-producing 
industries have the requisite period of time in which to make this 
transition.
  Mr. POLIS. And as Mr. Heinrich pointed out, along the way they 
actually have an incentive; they actually get paid. They earn money if 
they find more energy-efficient ways to produce these metals, which of 
course they're going to.
  Again, American ingenuity, as Mr. Tonko talked about. There is no 
problem that's created that Yankee ingenuity can't solve. And 
technology has been a great force of growth for this country. And Mr. 
Connolly pointed out, you know what? They probably will be there with 
the right incentives by 2025. Not only will this bill help create a 
whole new green tech and manufacture and research base, but it can also 
be the salvation of some of our existing manufacturing jobs by showing 
them the way to do it more cleanly and actually providing an economic 
incentive that is actually money in the pockets of workers and 
companies manufacturing in this country by being ahead of the curve and 
ending their reliance on fossil fuels.
  Mr. TONKO. And Representative Polis, if I might, as we choose to 
speak to this green energy thinking, our actions, the vision shared 
with this Nation will percolate into all sorts of layers, even reach 
our youngest population where in the classroom they may be inspired to 
move into these careers. We need to encourage that sort of outcome. We 
need to encourage our more technically sophisticated workers of the 
future. And it could start as early as the elementary years when they 
hear the discussion out there--when they don't hear the denial, when 
they don't have the deception, but when they get the facts brought to 
them. When they see the potential out there that exists today and that 
can grow into the future, that can't help but spark the interest.
  How many young people were watching the first step on the moon? How 
many young people then chose to be scientists and engineers to go along 
that path? Our community colleges that are there as the campus of 
choice in so many communities, where they can train and retrain a 
workforce to become those stewards of the environment, that will help 
us in this agenda to be most energy efficient and to grow R&D 
opportunities in the lab.
  This is a tremendous opportunity to inspire our Nation, to lift us 
from the doldrums of an energy environment and economic crisis that has 
really hampered a lot of progress for this country and has denied 
competitiveness for our manufacturing base.
  Mr. HEINRICH. This really is our generation's Apollo Project. It is 
the greatest challenge of our generation. And we intend to meet it and 
not cede that leadership to someone else.
  And the words that keep coming up over and over again, when you 
discuss these issues, independence, ingenuity, entrepreneurship, 
conservation, I mean, those are things that this Nation was built upon, 
and we certainly cannot turn our back on them now.
  Mr. POLIS. You know, and again, what started this whole discussion is 
the cost of inaction, and we're talking about the benefits of action. 
And I think we've made that case; I mean, when it's 750 bucks a year in 
your family's pocket, whether it's extra jobs being created or whether 
it's us exporting technology to China and Europe, I mean, these are the 
benefits. And when we look at the cost side, that cost side is skewed 
towards not taking any action.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Boy, are you right, Mr. Polis. You know, I 
listen sometimes to the rhetoric of our friends on the other side of 
the aisle, and they never talk about that. They never talk about the 
fact that the cost of inaction to the automotive industry is the utter 
collapse of any automotive manufacturing capacity in the United States. 
They don't talk about the challenge of power generation. They don't 
talk about the extraction industries. They don't talk about what it 
means to any other kind of manufacturing capacity.
  For that matter, technology today, the industry that dominates my 
district, the information technology industry, is dependent on a 
reliable source of energy. And they understand that reliable source of 
energy needs to be, if we are going to stay competitive with foreign 
competition in the technology sector, a renewable source of energy.
  Mr. POLIS. As Mr. Tonko pointed out, another cost which we never hear 
the folks on the other side talking about, a cost of our reliance on 
oil, over $800 billion with the war in Iraq. Our foreign adventures in 
the Middle East, even absent the first war in Kuwait that we had to 
liberate Kuwait, the new war in Iraq, our ongoing presence in the 
region, these are all costs that the American taxpayers are paying. 
Where is the outrage from the other side of the aisle, as stewards of 
our taxpayer dollars, about all that money that is built into our 
reliance on foreign oil? That is all money that is leaving our country, 
never to be seen again. Not only are we sending all of our money to buy 
barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia, we are sending our young men and 
women, our brothers and sisters over there to risk their lives for 
those barrels of oil that we have coming back. I mean, this is critical 
for the national security of our Nation.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. And if I might interject just one thing, 
Mr. Polis, because when you said that, I am reminded of what we went 
through just 1 year ago this very summer, where the volatility of the 
price of gasoline really hit the pocketbook of the average American 
consumer. You want to talk about cost--it affected people's choices. If 
affected whether they could take that vacation. It affected their 
commutes. It affected discretionary travel in terms of shopping or 
seeing movies or even seeing friends and relatives because the cost of 
gasoline had become almost prohibitive for so many of our citizens. 
That's the cost, too, if we do nothing.
  Mr. POLIS. I mean, wind and solar, they don't fluctuate like that. 
The quantities are there. I mean, absent a bill like this, we could 
very well see $5 a gallon, $6 a gallon of gas.

                              {time}  2130

  I saw oil again hit a peak today. It was up over $80 a barrel. The 
dollar is weakening. Why is the dollar weakening? Because global 
investors are losing confidence in our currency. We can restore that 
confidence by being the centerpiece of this green revolution.
  Mr. TONKO. Representative Polis, I believe that volatility, that 
unpredictable nature of what we have to pay for this import of oil or 
gasoline should really drive our thinking. And I firmly believe, with 
every ounce of my being, that this is the moment for America. This is 
our moment, a golden opportunity to turn green. And we can grow an 
economy and really respond to the environment that needs to be nurtured 
by us, and we can utilize our energy resources in an efficient way by 
having this American power that will power America. And this is our 
moment, and we can't walk away from it.

[[Page 14694]]


  Mr. POLIS. Our time is soon coming to an end. Do you have any closing 
thoughts, Mr. Heinrich?
  Mr. HEINRICH. Just to thank my friend from New York for really 
closing, I think, on the issue we need to think about. This is about 
independence. It's about seizing the moment. And it's about providing 
the good jobs of tomorrow for the next generation. For my sons who are 
6 and 2\1/2\, I want them to grow up in this country with the same 
opportunities that I had and more. And it's going to be up to us to be 
able to pass this legislation to be able to provide those kinds of 
opportunities for the future generations of our Nation.
  Mr. POLIS. When people hear the American Clean Energy and Security 
Act, when they hear cap-and-trade, when they hear these, this is what 
they really mean, a lot of things we talked about here today. We are 
talking about the future of the American economy. We're talking about 
creating green jobs. We're talking about saving American households 
$750 a year within 10 years and $3,900 a year within 20 years. We are 
talking about creating an immense growth sector, making America the 
center of this technology, exporting this technology to some of the 
very same countries that we rely upon today for importing either 
manufactured products or energy-related products.
  And, most importantly, we are talking about ending the cost of 
inaction. We are talking about completely reducing a lot of these 
hidden costs and overt costs that we are paying every day when you fill 
up your tank with gas; sending our men and women overseas; importing 
products from overseas; sending our jobs overseas; and, of course, 
climate change, which is having an effect on farmers across our country 
as well as everybody else.
  So by passing this American Clean Energy and Security Act, which our 
SEEC coalition, Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition, is 
heavily involved with here in the United States Congress, can be the 
single most important act that we take this term in Congress to help 
make sure that America has a strong economy throughout the rest of this 
century and that the dollar regains its strength, that we create jobs 
here in our country, and we also save American taxpayers and families 
money along the way.
  So when people hear about this debate and they hear about costs, they 
need to realize the costs of inaction are greater, and they need to 
realize that the benefits of taking the right action now, and the right 
action is in this bill, will be a great testimony to America's success 
and ingenuity for the next generation.

                          ____________________