[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18538-18545]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Maffei). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege and honor to stand here 
in the House of Representatives, representing the people of the great 
boroughs of Staten Island and Brooklyn in New York for the Freshmen 
Energy Hour. I am privileged to be joined by my colleague, as I come 
from Hudson Valley in New York, my colleague from the Ohio Valley, the 
great John Boccieri, the gentleman from Ohio, who will join me in this 
Freshman Energy Hour.
  Mr. Speaker, we're here today to talk about the American Clean Energy 
and Security Act, which was passed recently by the House, and to speak 
to its merits in order to urge the Senate to pass it as well. I sat 
here and listened to our great colleagues from across the aisle for 
some time this evening speaking on this issue. They conclude that they 
hope that the Senate looks upon this bill unfavorably as they criticize 
the initiatives of this bill.
  I know that my colleague will mention it, but I would just like to 
remind them what their former candidate for President in last year's 
election, Senator John McCain, said about the cap-and-trade legislation 
as recently as February 17, 2009. He said: It's cap-and-trade, that 
there will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
It's a free-market approach. The Europeans are using it now. We did it 
in the case of addressing acid rain--look, if we do that, we stimulate 
green technologies. I have great faith in the American industry. This 
will be a profit-making business, create jobs. It won't cost the 
American taxpayer a thing.
  So I am pleased that those who spoke before me from across the aisle 
in opposition to this bill referenced the opinion of the United States 
Senate. And I am glad that Senator McCain was honest and forthright 
enough to admit that this legislation does, indeed, create jobs, 
provides for the security of our Nation, and takes care of the 
environment as well, and, indeed, it is important for us for our 
future.
  As we know, the recently passed Energy and Security legislation comes 
at a time when inaction will have undue consequences. This 
comprehensive energy and clean environment bill is a necessary vehicle 
to ensure our future economic and environmental viability in the 21st 
century green economy.
  I would like to start out by commending the leadership of the House 
who brought forward this bill and saw that it was passed. The regional 
differences arising from energy-based issues are often quite lofty, but 
the leadership did an outstanding job of moving through the legislative 
process with consideration for different Members' interests.
  Since the bill's passage before the Independence Day recess, many 
Members, myself included, have experienced varying degrees of concern 
from our constituents, particularly regarding the cost and impact of 
the bill to their wallets, and quite a lot of this concern has been 
raised because of misrepresentations from our gentle colleagues from 
the other side of the aisle as to the aspects of this bill. Together 
with Mr. Boccieri, I would like to address some of these concerns and 
the pervasive misinformation that has been put out there today and 
explain how this information will be a cost-saver for consumers and 
homeowners, will cut down on pollution, and will increase our national 
security.

[[Page 18539]]

  At a time when we are importing increasing amounts of energy from 
hostile regions of the world, we cannot afford to go down the path of 
energy insecurity. This legislation will redirect us on a path towards 
energy independence.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, I sat here and listened to our colleagues from 
across the aisle this evening and all day long, hundreds of minutes, I 
understand, that they spoke about this issue and the creation of jobs 
in this country. What I found very disconcerting as a New Yorker is 
that they've totally forgotten the issue of national security and how 
important energy independence is to this Nation. It's so important to 
me, Mr. Speaker, because I come from Staten Island and Brooklyn, New 
York, where, on 9/11, over 10 percent of the people who were killed in 
the attack on the World Trade Center came from our boroughs, although 
we have less than 5 percent of the population in that area.
  I remember that day as clear as any other in my life--in fact, more 
profoundly. It was a bright, sunny day. And I remember it because I was 
involved in my first election campaign that day. It was a primary for 
the New York City Council. We were in church at about 9 a.m., as we do 
on every Election Day after opening the polls and campaigning a bit. 
The police officer who I was with received an emergency call and took 
us out and said that something terrible had happened and we have to go 
down to the harbor.
  When we got down there, we saw the World Trade Center aflame, and the 
second plane had just struck. We went back to our office to close down 
the election, and as we were there, we saw the horrors of what 
transpired on television as the buildings collapsed. I will never 
forget it. I will never forget being on the pile the days after and the 
bucket brigade. I will never forget seeing President Bush say to our 
Nation and to those who lost their loved ones that we will never 
forget.
  After we closed down the election, we weren't sure what to do that 
day, so we went to the local hospital and set up a blood bank to await 
the injured people to come back from the site. But as hour and hour 
went on, we realized that no one was coming back and the enormity of 
the tragedy. I mention this because I think it's so important that our 
Nation does not forget the costs of dependence upon nations around this 
world for oil who want to see our great American democracy torn down. 
Our way of life is an affront to them, and they will do anything to 
tear down America.
  So when you have this discussion about energy and whatever they want 
to call it, let us never forget that this is about energy security 
first and foremost. America cannot go on the way it has, relying on 
foreign oil from countries who want to tear our country down. Even 
though we made a pledge at that time to end dependence on foreign oil, 
the chart that I have here will show that just in the last year, in 
2008, the amount of oil that we imported from foreign countries was 
66.4 percent of our usage. The dollars we spent overseas, $475 billion. 
How many of those dollars go to al Qaeda? How many of those dollars go 
to terrorists who want to bring destruction and terror to our country 
and to our allies' countries around this world?
  How dare anyone stand on the floor of this House of Representatives, 
this noble and esteemed body, and not talk about this anytime they talk 
about energy, anytime they talk about this bill. I consider it an 
affront when people misrepresent the facts of this bill for their own 
political reasons and not to bring the true facts to the American 
people.
  Look again at the ways, since the time that the attack occurred, the 
way that our dependence on foreign oil, our imports have gone up so 
dramatically. We have, indeed, forgotten. We have forgotten those who 
we lost that day. We've forgotten our pledge to have security, to have 
energy independence, and it is something that this bill will seek to 
do.
  At this time, I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. Boccieri, to 
share with us some of his thoughts from the perspective of the people 
of the great State of Ohio.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I thank the gentleman from New York and his 
insight and accuracy with respect to this issue and the importance that 
it has for our Nation. Now, I must give you this prelude.
  I approach this legislation from a very deep perspective that I've 
had throughout my life. For the last 15 years, I have served in the 
United States Air Force as a C-130 pilot, and I have to tell you that 
there is no matter before this Congress more important than the steps 
we are taking to create a situation by which our Nation can become 
energy independent.
  I must tell you that I hail from the Midwest, and I know my friend 
hails from New York, but I have to tell you that this bill and this 
legislation coming before the Congress is about Midwest innovation and 
breaking our reliance on Mideast oil. The pillars of this legislation 
are creating jobs, thousands of jobs in our country and hundreds of 
thousands of jobs alone in my district in Ohio, the 16th Congressional 
District.
  The pillar of this legislation is about national security, about 
moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. Those two noble causes 
right now are a track worth defending right now. I stand here with my 
colleagues today to tell you that we must do something. We will be 
judged by two measures, Mr. Speaker, two measures: by action or 
inaction.
  I remember in the 1970s when I stood with my father in line to wait 
so that we could fill up for a tank of gas. Back then, back then we had 
a Democrat-controlled Congress. We had a Democrat President, but we 
didn't have the political will to make this happen. This Congress and 
this President are saying, No more. No more to outsourcing our 
dependence to foreign petro-dictators, if you will, that don't have the 
interests of the United States at stake.
  My colleague talked about some of those, and let me just put this 
down to you right now. In 2003, a U.S. Department of Defense study 
concluded that the risk of abrupt climate change should be elevated 
beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern. We 
talked about how much oil we've used from overseas. We imported over 66 
percent just last year, accounting for nearly 16 percent of all import 
spending.
  My friends, we must do something. Now, this is not just John Boccieri 
saying this on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is not 
my friend Mike McMahon from New York saying this or my friend Frank 
Kratovil from Maryland suggesting this. Every Presidential candidate 
running for the highest office in our country last year said that this 
is a matter of national security.
  You heard the words of my friend from New York when he talked about 
Senator John McCain, who I have great respect for, a man who I flew out 
of Baghdad while he was visiting our troops, a man who put his life on 
the line for the country. I want the American people and our colleagues 
here tonight to listen to this. It's about cap-and-trade.
  There will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. It's a free-market approach. Let me repeat that. It is a 
free-market approach. The Europeans are doing it. We did it in the case 
of addressing acid rain. We're doing a cap-and-trade program right now 
in the United States here that's been in existence for 19 years. Look, 
if we do that, we will stimulate green technologies. This will be a 
profit-making business. It won't cost the American taxpayer. Let me 
repeat that again. John McCain said that it's a free-market approach 
and it won't cost the American taxpayer.
  Joe Lieberman and I introduced a cap-and-trade proposal 7 years ago 
which would reduce greenhouse gases with a gradual reduction. We did 
the same thing with acid rain. This works. It works. My friends, this 
is about our national security. John McCain and every other 
Presidential candidate running for office last year said that it's a 
matter of national security.

                              {time}  2115

  The Department of Defense is saying it's a matter of national 
security. But

[[Page 18540]]

all of a sudden, our friends here that we have this debate with are 
running away from national security. For what, I have no idea.
  But I'll tell you this much. This is our opportunity to put America 
on a track where we can create jobs in the heartland and in the cities 
of great New York and in the suburbs of Maryland. We can create jobs 
and we can protect our national security.
  After having fought--one last point, Mr. McMahon. After having served 
overseas flying wounded and fallen soldiers out of Baghdad, it is very 
clear that our presence in the Middle East is about that 66 percent 
that Congressman McMahon talked about, because 40 percent of that 66 
percent that has come from overseas comes from the Middle East. And 
this is the time that we have to act.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Congressman Boccieri for that passioned 
insight on this issue. And as you point out, I talked about the horrors 
of our energy dependence on the Middle Eastern countries here on 
foreign soil, on our domestic soil and through terrorism.
  But certainly, we thank you for your service to our country. And also 
it's quite clear that the men and women who are wearing our uniforms 
right now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing so, so much so 
because we can't get off our addiction to that foreign oil, 
particularly from the Mid East, and that's what this bill is about.
  We'd like to hear from our equally great colleague from the great 
State of Maryland, Frank Kratovil.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Let me thank the gentleman from New York for, first of 
all, leading us in this discussion this evening on such an important 
topic and, of course, my friend and colleague from Ohio, Mr. Boccieri, 
for passion.
  I want to follow up on just a couple of things that you had 
mentioned, Mr. Boccieri, talking about this issue from a historical 
perspective. You know, so many times in this country we talk about for 
years and years the things we need to do, and yet when push comes to 
shove, we don't always have the political courage to do what needs to 
be done. You were speaking about discussions you had with your father.
  You know, every U.S. President since Richard Nixon has advocated the 
need for energy independence. In 1974, Nixon promised it could be 
achieved within 6 years. Gerald Ford promised it could be done in 10 
years. And Jimmy Carter pledged to wage the moral equivalent of war to 
achieve it. And yet, here we are, in 2009, and for the first time 
really we have made steps, really aggressive proactive steps in 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
  I want to read you something that President Nixon said at the State 
of the Union address in 1973. Looking at the year 1974, which lies 
before us, there are 10 key areas in which landmark accomplishments are 
possible this year in America. If we make these our national agenda, 
this is what we will achieve in 1974. We will break the back of the 
energy crisis. We will lay the foundation for our future capacity to 
meet America's energy needs from America's own resources. That was 
Nixon in 1973.
  Gerald Ford, in 1975, said, I am proposing a program which will begin 
to restore our country's surplus capacity in total energy. In this way 
we will be able to assure ourselves reliable and adequate energy and 
help foster a new world energy stability for other major consuming 
nations. We must develop our energy technology and resources so that 
the United States has the ability to supply a significant share of the 
energy needs of the Free World by the end of this century. President 
Ford, in 1975.
  So, looking at it from a historical perspective, we have talked about 
this for years and years because Presidents in the past have 
recognized, and Congresses in the past have recognized, that it is 
essential for our own national security that we reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil.
  In 1970, our oil imports have grown from nearly 24 percent in 1970, 
to nearly 70 percent of our total consumption now. Last year alone, the 
United States spent $475 billion on foreign oil.
  Needless to say, as Mr. Boccieri mentioned, and as you mentioned, 
much of this funding benefits nations that support terrorism or, at the 
very least, anti-American political extremism. How long should we 
continue to provide dollars to nations that seek to destroy us?
  And so, although this bill focused also on the issue of climate 
change, for me, and I'm sure for many other Members, this issue had 
more to do with, from my standpoint, an issue of national security, 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil and doing what we should have 
been doing back in the 1970s and moving our country forward.
  Now, let me say something about our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. Objections have been raised with a number of bills that have 
come before this Congress, and arguments that we are moving too 
quickly. Some of those arguments I've agreed with. But the key in 
moving this Nation forward is not simply to have people that stand in 
the way of making progress. Regardless of arguments that they make, if 
we were to give as much time as our opponents on the other side of the 
aisle would allow, many of them would still object to moving this 
country forward.
  So we need to find a reasonable balance between some of the 
objections that are made in terms of process and yet, at the same time, 
make sure that we are not simply standing in the way of progress simply 
as a result of being in opposition for whatever we do to move this 
country forward.
  And with that, I'll yield back to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Congressman Kratovil. And those are points 
extremely well taken. And you can only wonder whether President Nixon 
and President Ford would be very disappointed, having understood how 
important this issue is to our national security to have the other side 
of the aisle, as you say, really giving out such misinformation about 
the effects and particulars of this bill to really scare the American 
Nation. And I can tolerate that when it's issues of a more domestic 
nature and whether, you know, we should, when it comes to different 
types of issues that we vote on on resolutions before the House or 
domestic issues.
  But when you talk about national security, it really borders on 
unpatriotic, in my mind, to use misinformation to scare the American 
people at a time when we can really get ourselves off foreign oil.
  You know, how many times have we heard about the study from the MIT 
economist that, according to the other side of the aisle, will cost 
every American family $3,100 under this bill? That very economist has 
come out in public and said that it is untrue, that they are 
misrepresenting the conclusions of his report.
  And everyone from the CBO to everyone else down has pointed out that 
when you take in all the different ramifications of the bill in 
consideration, that at worst, in the year 2017, I believe it is, that 
the average American family, at most, would see an increase of $175 a 
year. Now that's in 8 years. So between now and 8 years from now there 
is no increase, and there are natural increases anyway. And in fact, in 
some parts of the country, like the Northeast, which I represent, there 
will actually be a decrease in cost because of the way that we generate 
our energy now and the way it's transmitted.
  In fact, the National Resources Defense Counsel says that in the 
Northeast they will see a decrease of $5 per month on your electricity 
bill. That's why three Republicans in New Jersey voted for this bill. 
That's why a Republican in New York voted for this bill. They didn't 
listen to the misinformation. They understood it was about national 
security, and it delivers electricity to homeowners at a cheaper cost.
  Yet, I believe to engage in misinformation on this very vital issue 
of national security is wrong.
  Congressman Boccieri, I'd like to yield to you, sir.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. I thank the gentlemen from New York and Maryland for 
their insight. And we talked about what our friends on the other side 
are

[[Page 18541]]

suggesting about the cost. But let me ask you this profound question: 
What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of doing nothing? 
500 billion, $1 trillion overseas?
  This is a matter of our national security. And I must tell you that 
if 27 percent of all America's cars were hybrid electric gasoline 
vehicles, much like Ford has produced with its Escape, and much like we 
have with some of the other models coming before the market, if just 20 
percent of all American cars were hybrid gasoline electric models, the 
United States could stop importing oil from the Persian Gulf. Just 20 
percent of the vehicles on our roads, we would end our dependence on 
oil from the Persian Gulf.
  This is the pillar of our legislation, national security, creating 
jobs and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. That's what an 
energy policy in the United States should encompass. That's what it 
should evolve into, and that's what this legislation is about.
  If you will just indulge me, I want to read some quotes here from 
some of our colleagues who were running for President on the other side 
of the aisle. Rudolph Giuliani said we need to use and expand the use 
of hybrid vehicles. Remember, just 27 percent of all vehicles on the 
roads of the United States would end our dependence on oil from the 
Persian Gulf. Clean coal, carbon sequestration, which is very important 
to a State like Ohio, where we have a great abundance of coal and 
carbon capture. We can use that in Ohio. $180 billion in this bill for 
carbon capture and sequestration and studying that.
  The United States Air Force is testing synthetic fuels right now, 
blended fuels at Wright Patterson Air Force Base because they know, 
back in the 1940s, when the United States bombed the Ploesti Romanian 
oil fields and cut off the Germans' supply of oil, the Germans quickly 
transitioned to synthetic fuel, a derivative of coal. We're reaching 
that in Ohio, and the United States military is doing the same.
  We have more coal reserves in the United States than oil reserves in 
Saudi Arabia. This should be a major national project. This is a matter 
of our national security.
  Let me reference our friend, Mitt Romney, a good American, suggested 
that there are multiple reasons for us to say we want to be less 
dependent on foreign energy and to develop our own sources. That's the 
real key, of course, additional sources of energy here, as well as more 
efficient use of energy. That will allow the world to have less oil 
being drawn down from the various sources it comes from, without 
dropping prices to too high of a level. It will keep people, some of 
whom are unsavory characters, from having an influence on our foreign 
policy.
  Let me add Mr. Huckabee. Mr. Huckabee, a good American, plays the 
guitar very well by the way, I should add. Mr. Huckabee said, So it's 
critical that our own interests, economically and from a point of 
national security, we commit to becoming energy independent and that we 
commit to doing it within a decade. We sent Americans to the Moon in a 
decade. We can become energy independent in a decade. We have to take 
responsibility for our own house before we can expect others to do the 
same for theirs. It goes back to my basic concept of leadership. 
Leaders don't ask others to do what they are unwilling to do 
themselves.
  Very, very profound statement right there. And we know it's often 
been said that fear is not a tool of leadership; it's a tool of the 
status quo.
  One last one. Our good friend, Mr. Paul. We serve with him here; I 
just spoke with him the other day on the floor. Mr. Paul said, True 
conservatives and libertarians have no right to pollute their 
neighbors' property. You have no right to pollute your neighbors' air, 
water or anything. And this would all contribute to the protection of 
all air and water.
  One last point, Mr. McMahon. The Truman Project suggested that 
economic disruptions associated with global climate change are 
projected by the CIA and other intelligence experts to place increased 
pressure on weaker nations that may be unable to provide basic needs 
and maintain order for their own citizens. This is a matter of national 
security.
  I yield back.
  Mr. McMAHON. You're so right, Congressman Boccieri, and you put that 
so eloquently. And you have to wonder why it is that the national 
leaders of the Republican Party get it, yet it seems to be that the 
Members of the House of Representatives from the Republican Party don't 
get it at all.
  Before I yield to our great colleague, also from the great State of 
New York, Mr. Paul Tonko, I just want to make two points because on the 
issue of national security, I was shopping in my local supermarket over 
the weekend, and I spoke to a gentleman who had heard some of the myths 
about the bill and we spoke about national security. He said to me, 
well, if we just drilled all our oil in this country, we wouldn't have 
this problem. Well, we know that physically that couldn't happen 
immediately. But even if it were to happen, the truth of the matter is, 
a generation from now those resources would be depleted as well and 
we'd be in the same place that we are now.
  The point of the matter is that we cannot go on the way that we have. 
And, certainly, I know that there are some who will say, well, global 
warming, that's a myth. Okay. Take that, if you want to make that 
argument, go ahead. But pollution and the effects of pollution are not 
a myth.
  In my district we have the highest rate of lung cancer in America. 
And why? Because we're downwind from the factories in New Jersey and 
Ohio and across this country. And it blows across and into the people 
of Staten Island and Brooklyn, and we breathe, and also from the cars 
and the smog, that terrible air. And it's time, across this country and 
all those places and those great States that I mentioned, and in my 
area as well, to have clean air.

                              {time}  2130

  There was a very disturbing report on TV this morning. You know, 
children who are conceived and who are born in areas that have high 
levels of pollution, that have high levels of polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons, or PAHs, if they're in the womb when they're exposed to 
that, their IQ rates are four or five points less than those of 
children who are conceived and who are born in areas that do not have 
that pollution. So you could argue about global warming until the cows 
come home. We know that it's real, but even if you think it isn't, 
pollution is not a fiction.
  As John McCain mentioned, and as we know in New York--and my great 
colleague is about to speak from Upstate New York--acid rain was a 
problem, Congressman Tonko. Certainly, in the lakes in Upstate New 
York, in the Adirondacks and in the Catskill Mountains, they were dead. 
The lakes were dead, and that was caused by pollution from sulfur 
dioxide. We now know, because of cap-and-trade, a program which was 
implemented in 1990 at a third of the projected cost at that time and 
in half the time projected to clean up, it is very successful, and 
those lakes again are alive.
  Referring to Upstate New York, it's a privilege and an honor to 
welcome our colleague from the great State of New York, one who is a 
real leader on the issue of energy and on a clean environment, Paul 
Tonko.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative McMahon. It's a pleasure to join 
with you and with our colleagues from Ohio and Maryland in dealing with 
the facts of the matter and not with the fiction.
  I know that you had earlier gone through the mathematics and the 
calculations of the impact, as reported by the opposition in the House, 
as to what this is costing us. To take claim of $3,100 and basing it on 
a study done where the author has said you have misapplied that 
information from the MIT study and to grossly inflate it at $3,100 
when, more appropriately, it's between the range of $65 and $80, it has 
an impact on a family. Then the author further addresses it by saying 
that it needs to be additionally calibrated to go toward the final 
package that was passed by the House, which has an even lesser impact. 
Yet leave that aside, and talk about the cost of doing nothing.

[[Page 18542]]

  Many people will lament, I'm certain, in each one of our districts, 
as we travel through our districts, about the job loss, about the 
exportation, and about the offshore/across the shore of American jobs. 
Well, no one is there to talk about that same impact of sending $400 
billion a year to regimes that are unfriendly, that are terrorist in 
nature, that are certainly not the most secure or stable governments in 
the world, and we're supplying $400 billion a year. That is the cost 
today. That is a tax. Call it what you want. It is a tax on the 
American public. We can go forward and address, in a more secure and 
energy-independent manner, the sort of solutions that will then grow 
American jobs. American clean energy jobs are what this whole proposal 
is about. So it speaks to our sustainable quality that we can encourage 
that which allows us to grow energy security.
  How so?
  Well, the Union of Concerned Scientists has said that the renewable 
electricity standards in our package in the House version will produce 
well over 300,000 jobs. Then we also have the American Council for an 
Energy Efficient Economy that is talking about energy efficiency 
standards that are, again, part and parcel to this package that will 
grow over 225,000 jobs.
  So there, just in a sampling of what can happen, you see how American 
jobs begin to grow and how they get cultivated from this very aspect of 
legislation. Those are real jobs. Those are factual bits of information 
that need to be exchanged and shared with the American public.
  People know that our destiny here is controllable by our own actions. 
They know that. They want us to go forward. They want us to grow this 
green energy market. They want us to be able to respond in analytical 
terms where we embrace the intellectual capacity of this Nation and 
where we grow those technical jobs. There are incentives in this 
legislation. There are those underpinnings of support to, again, foster 
those kinds of jobs so that we can stretch this innovation economy and 
so that we can enhance the number of jobs that are science-and-tech 
related or are coming through ancillary forces out there that further 
extrapolate the good outcome and that grow the jobs that are so 
essential.
  American jobs producing American power to then retrofit all of that 
activity into the American job market: manufacturing, making it more 
efficient.
  We want to keep jobs here. Let's produce a package that retrofits 
American manufacturing centers to allow them to produce a product 
wisely, more effectively, efficiently, and then, yes, more 
competitively in the global market. It all begins with sound energy 
policy.
  They don't want to face those facts. They just want to use 
applications of fear and say it will cost every family $3,100 when they 
have been defied in that statement by the very author of the study they 
cite. That is unacceptable, and the public deserves better than that. 
They deserve the facts that show how we can grow jobs, how we can 
create United States' jobs--American jobs--and how we can make us a 
global technology leader. We need to do it so that we can compete 
globally. If we're not creating these products, if we're not 
implementing those sorts of changes, we're falling drastically behind 
places like China, Germany and Japan, and we can continue to list those 
countries. It's imperative that we do this.
  Mr. McMAHON. I think it's rather telling--and before I defer to my 
colleague from Maryland--that, today, the other side of the aisle did 
130 one-minute speeches, asking the question: Where are the jobs?
  Quite clearly, as you have stated and from these independent studies, 
from the balance of the studies, by 2020, there will be either 250,000 
or 300,000 green jobs created in this country, as shown on this map of 
our country. It shows where the jobs will be created all across this 
great Nation. Each circle indicates from 4,000 to 85,000 to 250,000. 
All of these jobs across this country will be created. This is where 
the jobs are. It is in doing legislation that is insightful, that is 
thoughtful, that takes some courage to stand up and to deal with 
difficult issues, and that doesn't run away from the fact that this is, 
indeed, an issue, not only of domestic financial security but of, first 
and foremost, national security.
  Congressman Kratovil from Maryland, I yield to you, sir.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Tonko, thank you for your comments.
  I want to follow up on something you said. You were talking about 
misstatements that were made in terms of the costs. I want to go back 
to that in a minute.
  You know, one of the misconceptions that you hear when you're back in 
your districts and elsewhere across the country and that was played up 
nationally is that, you know, the status quo is acceptable, that 
Congress doesn't need to take any action, that we're good where we are, 
and that, at this time, we don't need to do anything. Of course, that 
is not accurate.
  As you folks know, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the 
Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate 
greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, meaning that the EPA 
today, without congressional action, could take action on their own to 
reduce greenhouse gases without any of the protections that were 
provided under the bill that we passed here in the House. So the 
argument that Congress could sit back and do nothing is clearly 
inaccurate simply based on the Supreme Court case in 2007 that 
demonstrated otherwise. So that ship, in a sense, has sailed.
  Congress had an obligation to do it, not simply because of the 
Supreme Court case, but as we're talking about here, obviously we 
needed to do it in terms of national security and in terms of reducing 
our dependence on foreign oil, Mr. McMahon, as you pointed out so 
clearly and also you, Mr. Tonko, in terms of moving us forward in these 
new green energy jobs that we need.
  In terms of the cost issue that you raised, that is the best example 
of how in a national debate statements are made that are so clearly 
factually inaccurate. As you folks know, I spent 14 years as a 
prosecutor, and my life and profession were governed by facts. When you 
see a misstatement like that in terms of facts, it's somewhat 
overwhelming, particularly, as you said, in the study that was cited by 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The author of that study 
that was cited came out publicly and said that he was being cited 
inaccurately and that that was not what he said.
  The interesting thing is, in looking at it in terms of energy 
efficiency, not only, arguably, will it not cost our constituents more, 
but arguably, it will cost them less because of the energy-efficiency 
savings that will result from that bill. In Maryland, as an example, 
the study that you cited, Mr. McMahon, indicates that Marylanders could 
arguably save $8 per month as opposed to the arguments that they're 
going to pay $3,900 more. So the facts that have been given are 
oftentimes inaccurate.
  As you go around and as you're having this discussion with people on 
whether we should have the policies that were included in that bill, 
it's interesting from a Maryland perspective, because I heard quite 
frequently people saying, You know, Mr. Kratovil, we don't want cap-
and-trade. Well, in Maryland, we've had cap-and-trade since 2007. 
Maryland has participated in a regional greenhouse gas initiative since 
2007, so we already had that.
  Again, the interesting thing is, in terms of the Federal standards 
that were set in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 
percent, in Maryland, it's 25 percent. So, in many ways, in Maryland, 
the argument wasn't so much whether or not we should have these 
policies; the question was whether or not we should have these policies 
nationally so that we're all playing by the same rules.
  So many of the facts that have been given are inaccurate. As I said, 
it is incredible when you think about the fact that, for the last 40 
years, there has been a recognition among Presidents that, in terms of 
national security, we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

[[Page 18543]]

  Ronald Reagan: The best answer, while conservation is worthy in 
itself, is to try to make us independent of outside sources to the 
greatest extent possible for our energy. 1981, Ronald Reagan.
  President George H.W. Bush, October 25, 1991: When our administration 
developed our national energy strategy, three principles guided our 
policy--reducing our dependence on foreign oil, protecting our 
environment and promoting economic growth.
  Arguably, this bill does all three.
  Yet, despite that recognition dating back to Nixon, despite the fact, 
as Mr. Boccieri has correctly pointed out, that every major Republican 
Presidential candidate acknowledged the need for reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil and despite the fact, as was mentioned, that 
Senator McCain specifically promoted cap-and-trade, when we take the 
vote in the House, we only have a few brave Republicans who are willing 
to cross party lines.
  Now, why is that?
  In my view, despite arguments that are made in terms of process, 
despite arguments that are made somewhat substantively related to the 
bills, the bottom line is, ultimately, the votes that are being taken 
on major issues facing this country are still predominantly based on 
politics and are not based on what is in the best interest of this 
country.
  As we talked about after this vote, were we to have the vote 
tomorrow, I would make it again. It was a vote that was very important 
to this country. It is a vote that will move this country forward, and 
we need to do what we're doing tonight to convince the people of this 
country that we were right, as I think we were.
  With that, I will yield back.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Kratovil. You did that very eloquently, 
and I think it certainly moved some of the people who are watching.
  You know, before I yield to our great friend from Ohio (Mr. 
Boccieri), you had pointed out about how facts are so important for a 
prosecutor and about the author of that study and that the facts were 
being misused. Publicly, the author said, No, you're misusing my study. 
These are the real facts. I could see people would misuse it until he 
made that statement. Maybe they misunderstood it. Yet, when he 
clarified it and said that they were misstating it, can you imagine 
that I heard it cited on the floor of this House this evening just 
prior to our hour here? I find that incredible, and it's certainly 
something that speaks to the fact that, for some, unfortunately, it's 
more about politics here than it is doing what is right for the 
American people.
  I yield to our colleague from the great State of Ohio, John Boccieri.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Congressman McMahon.
  So let me get this straight: The pillars of this legislation are 
about creating jobs right here in America that can't be outsourced. 
When you build a brand new nuclear reactor, when you build an electric 
hybrid car, when you build an electric grid, those are jobs and those 
are materials that cannot be outsourced. So it's about creating jobs. 
Another pillar of this legislation is about national security and about 
moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. Who wouldn't be for 
that? Let's go over this again.
  In 2003, a Department of Defense study suggested that the risk of 
abrupt climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to 
a U.S. national security concern. The CIA and other intelligence 
experts said that the economic disruptions associated with climate 
change are projected to put pressure on weak nations that may be unable 
to provide the basic needs and maintain order for their civilians.

                              {time}  2145

  If we just invested in electric hybrid cars and 27 percent of our 
vehicles here in the United States were gasoline-electric hybrid 
models, the United States could stop importing oil from the Persian 
Gulf. 66.4 percent of our oil came from overseas last year, over 40 
percent came from the Persian Gulf. We're fighting two wars there. Our 
Nation's military is there. It's time to bring our troops home safely, 
honorably and soon, end this addiction that we have to Middle Eastern 
oil.
  Teddy Roosevelt, a great Republican, said this: In a moment of 
decision, the worst thing that you could do is nothing. What about 
drilling? In the Senate version, we're going to expand drilling here in 
the United States. Expand it in the Gulf of Mexico. We know that we 
can't sustain that, though, with 22 million barrels of oil consumed 
here in the United States every day and only 3 percent of the world's 
reserves here in the United States. After we consume 25 percent of the 
world's oil, we can't sustain it. Do the math.
  What about jobs? Manufacturing, in 1950, accounted for over half of 
every job in America. We're at 10 percent now. Let's produce jobs here. 
Let's make solar panels so that they can recharge our batteries. Let's 
do things like fuel cell research like we're doing in the 16th 
Congressional District. Let's do electric hybrid vehicles, plug-in 
hybrids like we're doing in the 16th Congressional District. Let's 
research clean coal, and coal is an abundant and cheap source of 
energy. We're going to use it, we're going to make it cleaner, and 
we're going to make certain that it is a long and sustaining source of 
energy for us for years to come.
  Let's talk about the 8,000 manufactured parts that go into a wind 
turbine. Can you imagine the Timken roller bearings being made in my 
district making the roller bearings for these big wind turbines? Can 
you imagine SARE Plastics in my hometown making the molding and the 
plastic molding that would go in to making the fiberglass 
infrastructure. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced because we're 
going to use them. We're going to consume right here, consume that 
energy right here in the United States.
  This is one of the most important issues that we have to tackle. This 
is about the longevity of our country, quite frankly, my friends. This 
is about what my four children will have to look forward to, a Nation 
where we've become, like Mike Huckabee said, a Nation that can't feed 
itself, that can't fuel itself, or produce the weapons to fight for 
itself will be a Nation forever enslaved. Are we going to be economic 
slaves to a condition that we can correct? I think not. We have the 
courage. We can make that happen if we can find 60 patriots in the 
United States Senate to make sure the United States is ending our 
addiction to foreign oil.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, John.
  I now yield to the great gentleman from the great State of New York, 
Mr. Tonko.
  Mr. TONKO. It is a pleasure to join with all of my colleagues in this 
colloquy.
  Just yesterday and today in this Nation's Capital, a number of people 
got to meet the Apollo crew. They got to shake hands with astronauts 
that made history. They set foot on the Moon. We won a space race that 
took and demanded a huge investment by this Nation in science, 
technology, in growing our intellectual capacity, in creating a vision, 
in stating in bold measure how we were going to reach that goal.
  We're at that same moment of challenge. Just think of it. If we had 
allowed defectors that perhaps divided us or shared misinformation or 
preached politics of fear, we perhaps wouldn't have won that race. And 
that was so critically valuable and important to the American Nation, 
to Americans at large.
  That same sort of challenge, that sort of boldness of leadership, the 
demands for truthful exchange are upon us today, and to grow these 
opportunities, we'll deal with the facts. And I'm impressed by this 
House for the leadership and the membership that has really embraced 
that sort of factual information and advanced an agenda like the 
legislation that we're proposing and promoting here this evening.
  You know, when we look at situations, as Representative Boccieri made 
comment, we can grow jobs but we can also grow intellect. We need to 
grow the brain trust of this Nation. This measure invests in that 
development of the human infrastructure. And certainly when 
Representative Kratovil talked about previous administrations

[[Page 18544]]

through the decades talking about reducing our demands on foreign 
importation of oil, 60 percent of what we consume today imported from 
some of the most troubled spots in the world with unstable governments, 
it's more than that. We have a gluttonous dependency.
  Efficiency can reduce the demand side, and for far too long we did 
not have a comprehensive energy policy in this Nation. We addressed 
only the supply side and ignored the demand side. Well, now we're 
talking about both sides of that equation: producing our own supplies 
and reducing per capita usage of that precious resource. That's what 
this is about.
  Now we talk about innovation. We talk about growing those jobs. All 
of us have cited moments in history that have inspired us. I represent 
the city of Schenectady in upstate New York, dubbed the city that 
lights and hauls the world. Just over a century ago, they were the 
epicenter of invention and innovation. They allowed the world to be 
changed by the simple dynamics of creative genius in that location and 
an outstanding workforce. Blue collar, white collar workers that rolled 
up their sleeves and got the job done.
  Over a century later, we're at that same point where we need an 
energy revolution. This Nation is poised for that sort of development. 
Are we going to walk away? I don't think so. I think it's that boldness 
of leadership that will bring us to the point that we need to be.
  And speaking of GE, as a center in that city of Schenectady, they are 
already inspired by this legislation because we have advanced within 
the framework and the multiple needs that are addressed by this 
legislation, battery innovation, advanced battery manufacturing, 
batteries that can respond to energy generation, batteries that can 
respond to storage of intermittent power like wind and solar, and 
batteries that can address transportation sectors, both heavy fleets 
and lighter fleets. They have a battery application that they believe 
can respond to those multiple needs.
  And they have proposed, at a press conference, to be the site in my 
district to do advanced battery manufacturing. They are competing for 
the dollars that are part of this package if it is successful and 
certainly working on the input that came from the stimulus package, 
from the Recovery Act.
  Working with those applications, they want to go forward and make 
certain that we can build in this State of mine, in New York State, and 
your State, Michael, in a way that will have 350 to 400 jobs in the 
manufacturing sector of advanced batteries. That is progress. That is 
stability. That is security. That is a greening up of thinking. That is 
job growth. That is intellectual capacity that is stretched to a far 
greater degree.
  And think of it again. 40 years ago this week, we accomplished our 
goal because we committed to that goal. We didn't stand up in a House 
of Representatives and deny the facts or twist the facts or reject the 
truth. It all began with an honest exchange, and that's what we're 
doing here. We're going the make certain that the facts are addressed.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Congressman Tonko, and you put that 
eloquently. And certainly when the other side was engaged today in just 
long-winded speeches asking the question, ``Where are the jobs?'' you 
certainly will tell them with the stimulus package and with the ACES 
bill, with the Energy Security Act, we have jobs in Schenectady, New 
York, and Staten Island, New York, and anywhere else where we can build 
wind turbines and get back the technology that we invented and is now 
being used overseas.
  Gentlemen, we have about 9 minutes left or so, so maybe I could ask 
you all to kind of make a final remark. And we'll start with certainly 
the most youthful member--that's a tough one to say.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. I think Mr. Boccieri is younger than I. You certainly 
look younger.
  Mr. McMAHON. The person who lives the closest to Washington.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Since this will likely be my last round here as we go 
through this, let me thank the three of you for the courage to take the 
vote that you took on this bill. And as I mentioned in the last few 
discussions that I have had, I do think that it's important in moving 
our country forward that we do have people in this House that are 
willing to make difficult choices and to take difficult votes that 
ultimately are the best for this country even at times when it's 
politically difficult to do so. So I thank you for the courage to do 
that.
  You know, people forget that just last year when we were running for 
office we had $4-a-gallon gas, and people were looking at Congress and 
saying, What are you doing about $4 in gas? And I mentioned when that 
was going on that what we do oftentimes in this country is we deal with 
the crisis but we don't always deal with the underlying issue that led 
to the crisis.
  And so now as the gas prices have dropped, many have forgotten what 
we were facing just a year ago. Many have moved on. And yet my view is 
we should not forget the position we were in 1 year ago because we 
could, at any time in the future, be again paying $4 a gallon, $5 a 
gallon for gas as long as we are held hostage by those that control our 
energy. And until we make a decision, as we did in this vote, to move 
forward towards renewable energy, renewable fuel and ending our 
dependence on foreign oil, we could, at any moment, face the same 
situation we faced last year. And none of us as Americans should forget 
the anger that we had last summer when we were doing that. Many have 
forgotten. We should not forget that.
  We should deal with the underlying issue that led to the energy 
crisis that we faced last year, and that is reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil, moving towards renewable energy, and making positive steps 
in terms of our own national security.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Kratovil, for participating.
  And Mr. Boccieri, before I yield to you, I hope you will accept my 
heartfelt apology for even thinking that Congressman Kratovil could be 
younger than you, sir.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. You are forgiven this time.
  Let me thank my colleagues for joining me tonight on this important 
dialogue about the course of this country. Now is not the time to let 
up off the accelerator. Now is the time to put the gas down, put the 
pedal to the metal to make sure we do this, because this is about our 
national security, my friends. The CIA is saying it. The Department of 
Defense is saying it. Both Democrats and Republicans alike running for 
President said it last year, and a whole host of Presidential 
candidates and Presidential minds before that said that this is a 
matter of our national security.
  This is not an issue of partisan politics. It's about patriotism. 
This isn't an issue about Democrats or Republicans. It's about America 
and where will our course be in years to come.
  Forty-four percent of our oil comes from the Middle East where my 
friends right now are putting their life on the line for our country 
and for our national security and because of our economic interests of 
oil in that region. Let's bring them home. Let's become independent. 
Let's create jobs here in this country. Let's protect our own national 
security and move away from our dependence on foreign oil.
  Folks talk about the cost. What is the cost of doing nothing? What is 
the cost of doing nothing? We're going to outsource a trillion dollars 
of American taxpayer money, a trillion dollars, to enrich regions of 
the world that don't believe the same that we do when we can believe in 
Midwest innovation instead of relying on Middle East oil?

                              {time}  2200

  This is the time that we can make the decision. This is the time to 
move away from the politics of the past and look towards the future. We 
can't allow detractors to use fear as a tool of leadership when we 
know, as it's often been said, that it is a tool of the status quo.
  We will be judged by action or inaction. I'm glad that we chose to 
act. Thank you for having me tonight.

[[Page 18545]]


  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you. Congressman Tonko.
  Mr. TONKO. I thank Congressman McMahon.
  Representative Boccieri asked what is the cost of doing nothing. 
Well, beyond the lack of progress that we should taste in this Nation, 
it is the denial of this generation's children and grandchildren who 
will need those career paths developed by us. We need to cultivate that 
thinking that will allow them to have these new energy jobs, these new 
environmental jobs, these new plans for economic recovery. That is what 
gets really lost in the discussion.
  When China's now the number one producer of solar panels in the 
world, when Germany's number two export after cars is wind turbines, 
when six of the 30 top advanced battery-manufacturing solar and wind 
companies are American, we need to do better than we're doing today.
  As I made mention, the space race of decades ago was an investment 
made by this Nation in robust fashion. Today, we're in a green energy 
race with far many more global competitors. Whoever wins this becomes 
the go-to nation. They will be the exporter of energy ideas, energy 
intellect, energy invention.
  Do we want to deny this generation, future generations from those 
concepts, from that prize? I don't think so, and if we're going to deny 
them, let's at least deal with the facts. Let's talk factually. Let's 
not create a $3,100 price tag when we've been warned over and over 
again by the author of that study that it is grossly inflated. Let's 
move forward factually. Let's move forward in green fashion. Let's 
provide for an innovation economy. Let's speak to the generations of 
Americans that are counting on us to do a job, do it thoroughly, do it 
directly.
  Mr. McMAHON. I thank Congressman Tonko for those inspiring words, and 
thank you all.
  You know, it's funny, but in conclusion, I think we all have hit on 
the very important themes.
  Congressman Kratovil pointed out that it is about the domestic side, 
how much we pay for oil and gas, and what happened last summer, $4 of 
gas, America was outraged, that somehow a year later we've forgotten 
that because there are those in the House of Representatives of the 
United States Congress who use misinformation and misstatement of facts 
to somehow take the American people's focus off what has to be done.
  Just think about how many people you talk to at home who said, what, 
now I have to have an energy auditor in my house when I sell my home? 
We know that's not in the bill; yet, there are those who on the other 
side of the aisle have used that misrepresentation of fact to scare the 
American people, and that's wrong.
  Congressman Boccieri is a great veteran, a great flyer of planes for 
the United States military service. We thank you for your service, and 
you remind us that right now there are young men and women wearing the 
uniform of our country in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and other 
places, standing in harm's way because we have not dealt forcefully and 
effectively with our energy policy, and it's time that we end that.
  And as I said to you, coming from New York City and having lived 
firsthand the horrors of the acts of terrorism on our shores, in our 
country, we cannot forget the sacrifice that was made that day by those 
who lost their lives and those who got to the site and came to the 
rescue and continue to suffer the deleterious effects of their health.

                          ____________________