[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20230-20237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2130
                           ENERGY IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, this snuck up on me with respect to the 
timing. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle finished much 
earlier; they didn't have as much to say as we are tonight about clean 
energy.
  I am joined by my colleague from New York, Congressman McMahon, who I 
will recognize here very shortly to talk about one of the pillar 
issues, one of the seminal issues that we're going to address in this 
Congress, in this body.
  We've already taken action with respect to moving an energy policy 
forward that puts our country first. And truly, this is about making 
America stronger, making our country stronger by investing in America.
  Now, I know some may think that that's a novel idea, but this is not 
about Democrats or Republicans. This is not about their ideas versus 
our ideas. This is about Americans and American innovation, and it's 
something that I feel so passionately about.
  Today we're going to talk about this energy bill that passed through 
the Congress here, through the House of Representatives. We're going to 
talk about what has made this such an important issue in the coming 
weeks that we hope that the Senate will take action as soon as 
possible.
  Before I get too deep into my long speech here, I would like to 
recognize the gentleman from New York to say a few opening remarks with 
respect to energy and what we have to offer here in the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. McMahon.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Congressman Boccieri. And thank you for your 
leadership on this issue.

[[Page 20231]]

  Mr. Chairman and Mr. Boccieri, it is a privilege and an honor to 
stand here in the House of Representatives tonight and talk about this 
important issue. And I bring to it a perspective I think that is very 
important in this debate. You see, I come from New York City. I grew up 
in Staten Island, New York, and I now have the privilege and honor of 
representing Staten Island and Brooklyn, New York, here in the House of 
Representatives.
  For the last few weeks and months, I've been very disappointed at the 
rhetoric that I've heard in this Chamber, and beyond, from those on the 
Republican side of the aisle. They, quite frankly, have had their heads 
in the sand. They, quite frankly, have been tied up in the rhetoric of 
partisan politics. And I say that as a New Yorker, as someone who 
suffered and saw firsthand what happens when this country doesn't deal 
methodically and honestly with energy policy.
  You see, September 11, a date that we all know too, too well, in my 
opinion--and in the opinion of the people of New York and people around 
the world--occurred because our country has not dealt honestly and 
fairly with energy policy. Oh, I know it was the act of terrorists, 
there's no question; men bent on hate, men bent on Islamic 
fundamentalism to bring down this Nation. But our country has been 
caught up too long with an addiction to oil from the countries from 
which these men came.
  Every time an American goes to the gas pump and puts gas into his or 
her car, they are sending money back to a Saudi Government that has 
sent and continues to send money to al Qaeda. And every time you go to 
the pump and put gas in your car, you're sending money to Iran so 
Ahmadinejad can send that money to Hezbollah and roundabout to Hamas. 
We are paying for terrorists to arm and be energized in a war against 
America and all the things we stand for.
  So I know there can be honest debate on things that we disagree 
about. I know that we can stand on this side of the aisle and that side 
of the aisle and have a fair and honest debate about those things. But 
the things that I've heard over these last few weeks, the lies, the 
mistruths, the prevarications, are all too much for us to take.
  Just think about the way that the Republicans have tried to scare the 
American people by saying that if we pass an energy security bill here 
in Washington it will mean an increase in home heating and energy 
prices of $3,100 a year. And when they did that, they cited a study 
from an MIT professor. Upon hearing that, immediately that professor 
said, That is not true, you are misquoting my study. I did not say 
that. That's not what the study says.
  Weeks and months after that professor issued that disclaimer, we 
continue to hear from the other side of the aisle these very same 
pronouncements. They are untruths, they are misstatements, and they are 
prevarications, and it's time for it to end. The American people 
deserve more. The security of our Nation deserves more. The people who 
lost their lives on 9/11, the families who suffered, the emergency 
workers who suffered, all those people deserve more. And the men and 
women who right this moment are in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, 
they deserve better. They deserve an honest and upfront discussion 
about energy policy, what it means to our security, and that if we 
don't get it right now, then more lives could be lost in the future.
  Mr. Boccieri, I am so glad to be here with you to talk about these 
important issues. And I know that the people from Ohio to New York out 
to California will be united in knowing that America is a country--we 
sent a man to the Moon; we can deal with energy policy as well. And 
it's something that I look forward to working with you on.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I thank the gentleman from New York. And he is 
absolutely correct in his assessment of this. This is a matter of our 
national security.
  The American Clean Energy and Security Act that was passed out of 
this Chamber is about our Nation's national security, moving away from 
our dependence on foreign oil and, more importantly, creating jobs 
right here in our country that can't be outsourced.
  When we build a brand new nuclear reactor, it cannot be outsourced. 
When we lay the foundation for new solar panels on tops of buildings or 
on tops of our homes--or even some day perhaps on tops of our cars, 
recharging our batteries--those are jobs that can't be outsourced. The 
maintenance, the delivery, the processing that will go into these jobs 
are going to create jobs right here in America. And I am so proud that 
we are leading the edge.
  My predecessor, Congressman Regula, started investment in these 
technologies in our district. And I am glad and proud to be following 
in his footsteps to make certain that these types of energy investments 
are and will be making our country stronger in the long run.
  Let's revisit some of the things that we've talked about here, 
Congressman McMahon and, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this is about our 
national security.
  First and foremost, this chart right here really is a tell-all with 
respect to our national energy crisis that we face. 66.4 percent of our 
oil comes from foreign countries. 66.4 percent of our oil comes from 
overseas. That means $475 billion has been sent overseas. We are 
distributing our wealth. We are sending our resources, our hard-earned 
dollars overseas to buy a commodity that we can produce here, we can 
refine here, that we can explore here.
  In fact, the Senate version of the bill adds exploration and drilling 
right here in the Gulf of Mexico that will add 3.8 billion barrels of 
oil, but we know that that's not enough because we don't have enough 
oil here in America to fill the demand that we have. In fact, it's been 
reported that we have nearly 3 percent of the world's reserves here in 
America, in the Northern Hemisphere, but we consume about 24 percent of 
the world's oil. So you do the math. At 22 million barrels a day, 3 
percent of the world's oil here in the Northern Hemisphere, we would 
exhaust that resource very, very quickly.
  The number one user in the United States of oil, the number one 
consumer of oil in the United States, is the Department of Defense. In 
fact, we consume so much oil in the Department of Defense that we have 
grown very, very concerned here on Capitol Hill about our dependence on 
foreign oil because our Nation's military is so dependent on foreign 
sources of oil, oil that we import, and the fact that we have so many 
of our military operations going on overseas, so many of our troops, 
our men and women, are spread across the world that we have a national 
security crisis right here on our hands. And that's why, Mr. McMahon, 
that's why, Congressman, we have begun testing synthetic fuels. That's 
why we have been testing blended fuels in the Department of Defense.
  At Wright Patterson Air Force Base, they just started testing these 
blended fuels, synthetic fuels in our aircraft, because we know that of 
the Department of Defense, the largest consumer of oil in the 
Department of Defense is our aviation assets. Seventy percent of it is 
used with respect to our oil needs, and we have got to find an 
alternative source. That is why this energy legislation is so important 
to investing in alternative energies and understanding that our 
Nation's military is so dependent on this fossil fuel.
  Now, in 1944, when the United States bombed the Ploesti Romanian oil 
fields, we effectively cut off the supply of oil to the Germans, but 
they quickly transitioned to use synthetic fuel, which is a derivative 
of coal. Now, we know that we have quite a bit of coal here in the 
United States; it's abundant, it's a natural resource that is very 
cheap to us, and we are going to continue using it.
  In fact, the EPA has said, with the passage of this bill, coal use in 
America and the United States is actually going to increase. And with 
it being so abundant, boy, I would love to see, with the investment 
that we have charged in this legislation to invest in carbon capture, 
to invest in coal and synthetic fuel and coal-to-gas liquefication, 
these new types of technology that can make our country less dependent 
on foreign

[[Page 20232]]

oil, is going to make us stronger in the long run. And if we can put 
that synthetic fuel, that clean-burning fuel, that clean coal 
technology in our airplanes some day, we are going to be less dependent 
on our foreign sources of energy.
  Now, one last point before I turn it over to my colleague for some 
remarks. 66.4 percent of the oil comes from overseas. Do you know how 
much comes from the Middle East, Congressman? Forty percent of our 
Nation's demand is filled by the Middle East, by OPEC-producing 
nations. That is way too much. We have two wars going on in the Middle 
East, we have countless numbers of our troops over there. And it is 
argued--and has been argued so many times on this floor--that our 
Nation's interaction overseas and in the Middle East is about our 
dependence on that natural resource. And it's time we put America 
first, we put American troops first, and invest in our country and our 
people. I would much rather rely on the innovation in the Midwest than 
the oil in the Middle East.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Congressman.
  Congressman Boccieri, I think you have really established and hit 
home about how this is about national security.
  You know, there was a time in our Nation's great history--in fact, 
throughout most of its history--when we would talk about national 
security, both sides, Republicans and Democrats, would put down the 
partisan rhetoric, they would put away the myths and half truths and 
the prevarications and they would just talk to the facts, because what 
was at stake was not the gain of one side or the other, it was about 
the very essence of our country, our security, and the safety of our 
young men and women in uniform, whether it is the uniform of our armed 
services or the uniform of our first responders back here at home.
  Unfortunately, what we've seen throughout this debate from the 
Republican side is an onslaught, a deluge of untruths, of myths. I want 
to talk about a couple of those myths before I turn it back over to 
you. One is about the notion of the household energy audits.
  I have stood on this floor and sat in this Chamber and heard our 
colleagues from the Republican side of the aisle say, If you pass this 
bill and if America deals honestly and forthrightly with its national 
security and energy policy, every homeowner in America is going to have 
to do an energy audit before they can sell their home. Well, you know, 
Congressman Boccieri, and I know that that's not anywhere in the bill. 
That language does not exist; it's not in the bill, it was not in the 
bill that we passed. The Energy Security bill contains no provision 
requiring that buildings or homes undergo energy retrofits or audits of 
an existing home's energy efficiency.
  The bill does create incentives for builders and homeowners to take 
steps to reduce the waste in their homes and in their new buildings, 
and that's to everyone's benefit. The homeowner would save money on 
their energy bills, and we, as a Nation, would use less energy and, 
therefore, put ourselves less at risk. And yet we hear over and over 
again about these imposed requirements on America's homeowners. There 
is no Federal energy audit requirement. And it leaves the decision to 
the homeowners and the local governments to deal with that. The bill 
actually prohibits the EPA from regulating residential and commercial 
buildings as per the Clean Air Act, and yet we hear the rhetoric over 
and over again.
  But, you know, Congressman, in the debate there clearly have been, I 
believe, people from the other side of the aisle, Republicans, who have 
talked fairly and honestly about this issue, and I bet you would be 
able to tell us about some of them tonight.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Yes, I would, Congressman McMahon. And I thank you for 
those remarks.
  This is about our national security. This is not something that 
Congressman Boccieri is saying, it's not something the speaker is 
saying--because he's been on this floor right with us before talking 
about our national security needs--it's not something that Congressman 
McMahon is saying. This is something that the Department of Defense is 
saying and the CIA is saying.
  The U.S. Department of Defense, in 2003, concluded that the risk of 
abrupt climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to 
a U.S. national security concern. The economic disruptions associated 
with global climate change are projected by the CIA and other 
intelligence experts in the United States to place increased pressure 
on weak nations that may be unable to provide the basic needs and 
maintain order for their citizens.

                              {time}  2145

  So, you see, a component of this energy legislation is about moving 
away from our dependence on foreign oil, investing in clean energy and 
technology right here in our country, jobs that can't be outsourced, 
producing jobs that can put America back to work. And another component 
of that is addressing the issue of climate change.
  Now, cap-and-trade has gotten all the attention in this energy 
debate, and it shouldn't get all the attention because it's one segment 
of this bill that we're working on. But even that, which I know that we 
focus more on the national security part of it, but even our security 
experts and our Nation's military are saying it's a matter of our 
national security. Let me give you some statistics here:
  Today over 80 percent of the world's oil reserves are in the hands of 
governments and their respective national oil companies. Sixteen of the 
world's largest 20 oil companies are state owned, are owned by some 
state. And as you know, we import 66 percent of our oil. This is a 
matter of our national security, and we have got to take action now, 
and we must move away from our dependence on foreign oil. Cap-and-trade 
and the climate change legislation and the energy security that we can 
derive from a substantive and robust energy policy in this country is a 
matter of our national security.
  Now, that's not something that Congressman McMahon is saying. That's 
not something that the Speaker is saying or Congressman Boccieri is 
saying. That's something John McCain is saying, a proud American who 
put his life on the line for our country, who ran for President. He 
said that in cap-and-trade there will be incentives for people to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's a free-market approach. Let me 
repeat that again, Congressman McMahon: it's a free-market approach. 
The Europeans are doing it. We did it in the case of addressing acid 
rain.
  In fact, we have 20 years of cap-and-trade policy that's been enacted 
in the policy of the United States that we have found very big 
successes from. Look, if we do it, we'll stimulate green technologies. 
This will be a profit-making business. And it won't cost the American 
taxpayer. Let me repeat that again: it won't cost the American 
taxpayer. This is something that we have got to enact now, Mr. Speaker. 
This is about our national security.
  In fact, every Presidential candidate that ran for office last year, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, said it's a matter of national 
security. Let me revisit a couple of what our friends have said.
  Mr. Romney, an astute businessman, said that there are multiple 
reasons for us to say we want to be less dependent on foreign oil and 
develop our own sources. That's the key, of course, additional sources 
of energy here as well as being a 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 too high a level, and it 
will keep people, some of whom are unsavory characters, from having an 
influence on our foreign policy. That was Mr. Romney.
  Mr. Huckabee, he has another quote in addition to this one on our 
chart here. He said, A nation that can't feed itself, a nation that 
can't fuel itself, a nation that can't produce the weapons to fight for 
itself is a nation forever enslaved. And with respect to a national 
energy policy, he said, It's so critical that for our own interest 
economically and from a point of national

[[Page 20233]]

security that we commit to becoming energy independent and we commit to 
doing that within a decade. We have to take responsibility in our own 
house before we can expect others to do the same in theirs.
  It goes back to my basic concept of leadership. Leaders don't ask 
others to do what they are unwilling to do themselves. Well, we are a 
leader here in the United States. We're a leader. We sent a man to the 
Moon in just 10 years, and I vow to you that we can become energy 
independent. We can have an energy policy that invests in our people, 
creates jobs here, and moves away from our dependence on foreign oil 
because we believe in the innovation of America and we don't believe 
that we need to be dependent on Mid East oil.
  I yield to my gentleman friend.
  Mr. McMAHON. You're so right, Congressman Boccieri.
  Mr. Speaker, again, it's just somehow so infuriating. It really is 
beyond words to think that the Republicans try to take an issue that is 
so important, not just to our economy, not just to our environment, not 
just to the future of the generations of people who want to live in 
America and share in the American Dream, but to national security, the 
lives of our children, the young people in uniform right now, those who 
have been lost and those who will continue to be at risk.
  And what do they do? They take an important issue like this, and they 
come up with some quick catch phrases, you know, like the one that they 
like to use. You talked about cap-and-trade. They like to call it 
``cap-and-tax.'' Why do they do that? There is no tax anywhere involved 
in this bill. The word ``tax'' is not involved. In fact, in order to 
tax someone from the national government perspective, you have to 
invoke the Internal Revenue Code. The Internal Revenue Code is never 
mentioned in this bill. Instead, this is a proven system, as you said, 
to bring free-market principles to the system of manufacturing that 
will allow for not only a cleaner environment but for a new birth, a 
new generation, of manufacturing jobs in this country.
  We have lost our manufacturing base for a whole host of reasons. But 
here we are. As you said, when you build a nuclear power plant, you 
can't do that somewhere and import it. It's got to be done here. When 
you build a windmill farm, that has to be done here. And instead of 
addressing this very important issue, the other side comes up with 
catchy phrases, and certainly the one that they have done to cap-and-
trade across America I think is very shameful.
  Let's talk about cap-and-trade for a minute because some people will 
say, well, this is a new concept, Congressman Boccieri. And how can it 
be that we know whether or not this will work? Well, there are a couple 
of ways to know that. We have already done that in this country.
  Many Americans, certainly in the Northeast, where I come from, 
remember the concept of acid rain caused by sulfur dioxide. And in the 
1980s we realized that lakes and rivers were dying across this country 
because of sulfur dioxide. And we implemented in 1990 a cap-and-trade 
system when it comes to sulfur dioxide. And what does ``cap-and-trade'' 
mean? It simply means that you set a standard of how much pollution can 
be emitted in the country in a given year and that becomes your cap.
  And for what we have done now for the greenhouse gases is the year 
2005, and the same was done for sulfur dioxide. And then that allowance 
to be able to pollute is something that has value to it. You create 
value. And in the first go-around in the system that we're 
implementing, or that we want to implement now, 75 percent of those 
allowances will be free. So there will be no immediate cost to anyone, 
no increase in prices.
  But over time, by 2020, hopefully we will get to a point where we 
reduce our reliance on foreign oil, we cut down our emissions by 17 
percent, and we move forward with a good national security energy 
policy. We did that with sulfur dioxide, and everyone thought it would 
take 20 years, but it took 6 years. In 6 years' time, without any 
impact to our economy, we put an end to the overpollution of sulfur 
dioxide.
  Many plants put scrubbers on themselves, on their smokestacks. And 
guess what? In the year 2009 those lakes in my home State of New York 
are alive again. The fish are no longer swimming on top of the water, 
dead from pollution. They're alive again. And they are alive with 
wildlife and they are alive with a future that our country needs. It's 
about our water resources. It's about our environment. It's about our 
jobs. It's about our national security.
  So you're right, Congressman Boccieri, when you say it's about 
national security. And you've got examples of people who put partisan 
politics aside. They did it when they were running for President. I 
only wish the Republicans in the House of Representatives and in the 
Senate will put politics aside and put the interests of the American 
people first and get serious about an energy policy that deals with 
national security
  Mr. BOCCIERI. I couldn't agree with the gentleman more that we have 
to get serious about our Nation's energy supply.
  And this is not about Democrats or Republicans; this is about making 
America stronger. And Democrats and Republicans alike in the last 
Presidential election said we need to create jobs here in America. We 
need to create jobs here. You know, 8,000 manufactured parts go into 
making one of those wind turbines. Can you imagine some day that Timken 
Roller Bearing in my district would be making the roller bearings that 
go into these wind turbines or SARE Plastics could make the moldings 
for these respective wind turbines and to make the fiberglass 
components that go into this? These are jobs that can be made and 
profit right here in America, that can't be outsourced. And we will be 
killing two birds with one stone: creating jobs here in America and 
making us less dependent on energy from abroad.
  We have to go back to just a few more of these gentlemen who ran for 
President last year. I just want to finish up with these two:
  Rudy Giuliani, a good Italian, said, We need to expand the use of 
hybrid vehicles. We need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles, clean 
coal, carbon sequestration. We have more coal reserves in the United 
States than they have oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. This should be a 
major national project. This is a matter of our national security.
  Rudy Giuliani got it right because you know what? If we put 27 
percent of the vehicles on our roads in America, if just 27 percent of 
the vehicles on our roads in America were gas-electric hybrids, we 
could end our dependence on oil from the Middle East. We get 40 percent 
of our Nation's demand for oil from the Middle East, from OPEC-
producing nations, and if just 27 percent of the vehicles on the roads 
of America were gas and electric hybrids, we could end our dependence 
on oil from the Middle East. That is a vision that we should all strive 
for.
  Let me talk to you about one of our colleagues here, Mr. Paul. I 
spoke with him about 2 weeks ago. He's one of our colleagues here in 
the House. He said, True conservatives and libertarians have no right 
to pollute their neighbor's property. You have no right to pollute your 
neighbor's air, water, or anything. And this would all contribute to 
the protection of all air and water.
  Mr. Paul is somewhat of a visionary because he believes that in 
America if we make the right investments, we cannot only protect our 
country, move away from our dependence on foreign oil, but invest in 
our people, our way of life, and, more importantly, create jobs here in 
our country.
  I want to yield to my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Perriello). 
Congressman Perriello is joining us.
  Welcome.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. I thank Mr. Boccieri for yielding.
  As I said before, the people who have been against this bill, there 
are two things that bother me about them that I want to mention.
  One is these people aren't just climate skeptics; they're America 
skeptics. I am sick and tired of hearing the

[[Page 20234]]

word ``can't.'' They are the same ones who said we couldn't possibly 
take the lead out of gasoline. We couldn't possibly solve the sulfur 
dioxide problem or clean up our water and streams. We couldn't 
integrate our troops or go to the Moon. Can't, can't, can't. Well, when 
I was growing up I had coach after coach in sports say get the word 
``can't'' out of your dictionary. That is not an American word. America 
is all about how are we going to solve the problem.
  We know there is nothing we can't do if we put our minds to it, put 
our innovative spirit to it. And we see that here. People keep saying 
on the other side of this debate, well, let's just let China do it. 
That's basically what they're saying. We don't want to go ahead of 
China. We would rather have China invent all the technologies so we buy 
it from them? I'm sick and tired of buying everything from China. I 
want us to be making it right here in America and exporting that 
technology back to them.
  So these people aren't climate skeptics; they are America skeptics. 
They have given up on the idea that America can do it better than other 
countries, but I don't believe that. We are still more innovative than 
any other country. We are better capitalists than any other country. We 
are going to be the first to crack carbon capture sequestration 
technology. We are going to be at the cutting edge again of wind and 
solar and biomass.
  The farmers in my district want to be freedom fighters on the front 
lines in the struggle for energy independence that makes this country 
safe and makes it competitive again. That's because we are better at 
this than anyone else. That word ``can't'' that seems to echo across 
the other side of the aisle does not have any place in this Hall 
because America is better than that.
  And there is a second thing that bothers me about those who seem so 
angry about this bill in this body of ours, which is the intense 
partisanship of it. The worst kind of partisanship is when you think an 
idea is a good idea until the other side agrees with you and then all 
of a sudden it becomes the worst idea ever.
  Cap-and-trade, to their credit, is a Republican idea. The first 
President Bush was a visionary and a leader on this in solving the acid 
rain crisis because it was a Republican notion that we can use the 
power of the free market to solve these environmental threats.

                              {time}  2200

  We saw it again when Senator McCain and then Governor Palin both 
agreed that some form of cap-and-trade was a good idea. Former Senator 
from my State, John Warner, a great war hero, a great American, also 
saw the power of a tradable permit. This was fundamentally a Republican 
idea. And in our spirit of bipartisanship we say, we think this problem 
is so big, of energy dependence, it is threatening our security so much 
we will look anywhere. We don't care if that idea comes from one side 
of the aisle or the other. We just want to solve the problem.
  And as soon as we agreed and said, these are good ideas coming from 
the Republican side, all of a sudden, the only play they had in the 
playbook was to suddenly say Oh, it must be a bad idea because you 
agree with us. We can't even do bipartisanship when you agree with one 
of our ideas. This is something that is upsetting the American people 
when the problems run this deep. That's not what this country's about. 
It's about putting problem-solving ahead of partisanship.
  So Mr. Boccieri, thank you for doing this hour. It's so important for 
our national security, for our national competitiveness, but also for 
the very culture, the very soul of this country. It is all about that 
infinite horizon of possibility that says there is nothing we cannot do 
as a Nation, particularly when we unleash the power of the free market 
and that call to serve the common good that has led generation after 
generation to leave this country stronger than they found it.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. I find you very inspirational, Congressman Perriello. 
You're exactly right. And it's often been said that fear is not a tool 
of leadership; fear is a tool of the status quo. And that's exactly 
what we see from the other side right now; injecting fear, talking 
about taxes. Listen folks, there are no taxes in this bill. Don't 
believe me. Believe Senator McCain, who ran for President last year. 
Senator McCain said this is a free market approach and it won't cost 
the American taxpayers. We know here in this body that the jobs of 
tomorrow won't come on their own. We must incubate them and grow them 
domestically so they can not be outsourced. That's what this bill is 
about.
  We're joined by two of our other colleagues, distinguished 
colleagues, bright minds here, young bright minds I should say here in 
the House of Representatives, Congressman Kratovil from Maryland, and 
our good friend from New York, Congressman Tonko. Why don't we start 
with Congressman Tonko. Welcome.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Boccieri. I listened intently to 
our colleague from Virginia, and when Representative Perriello talked 
about the lack of response from the other side, the anger, perhaps, 
that is expressed, the politics of fear that are engaged, that those in 
and of themselves would be enough measure of concern. But the fact that 
that's coupled with an agenda that back-burnered over the last 
administration so much of the progress, we're reminded of a huge 
failure of the delivery system, the energy delivery system, in August 
of 2003. Here, 6 years later, we're not responding as well as we 
should. This measure allows us to, with a smart-metering investment, 
with an upgrading of the grid.
  You know, it was brought to our attention in very painful and dark 
terms, where blackouts gripped not only the Northeast and the Midwest 
of the U.S., but Southeast Canada, where two nations suffered from 
failure in the grid system. We have opportunities to embrace 
technology, technological improvements, advancements in smart metering 
and investments in the grid, to respond to that sort of failure. That 
was back-burnered. So were the investments in updating our renewable 
opportunities, investing in renewables.
  This measure will allow us to look seriously at renewable investments 
across the country. I'm also coupling that exercise with a bill that 
deals with wind turbine efficiency, where we'll look at materials that 
will allow for greater response from Mother Nature, where we're able to 
take the elements of nature and make them work to our energy needs, all 
through American jobs, to produce America's energy needs. That will 
enable us to take the advancements that we know are possible.
  We look at situations like super-conductive cable, where, in my 
district, they are now breaking their own records, super power is, by 
developing even stronger opportunities for us to reinvest and invest in 
innovative ways in the delivery system, in a way that, again, takes 
advantage of the intellectual capacity of this Nation.
  So this is about entering into a mix that already finds global 
competitors, but it advances an American agenda in a way that will 
place us in the role of leader. We cannot continue to sit by idly along 
the sidelines of this global green energy race and advance the notion 
that China will build all the solar systems, that Germany will embrace 
the same sort of renewable or advance manufacturing processes.
  We have opportunities here in this Nation to develop battery response 
through the stimulus package. I've seen what GE is working on, as it 
enters into this fray, to provide for an array of battery opportunities 
where it's not just Lithium ion that we develop but perhaps look at 
sodium chloride mixed with nickel, where we can address not only energy 
generation needs for batteries, but also the energy storage for 
intermittent situations, intermittent-type power, and where we can also 
use it for heavy fleets and lighter fleets for transportation-sector 
purposes.
  So there are tons of applications here. Just that GE battery 
application would find 300 to 400 jobs in my district that will enable 
us to provide the

[[Page 20235]]

linchpin, to open the doors to limitless possibilities. You know, it's 
that sort of fervor that we saw in the sixties, in the late fifties and 
sixties where, as a Nation, we went forward with the boldness of 
definition and the expression of vision where we could be better, where 
we could move into a space race. And we know that we invested, and we 
won for that investment. We need to do that here. And clean energy jobs 
for every State in this Nation is a great theme.
  And politics of fear that respond to the efforts of progress that we 
have embraced just don't have a place in this mix. It is unfair to the 
American public, as it looks not only for job creation, but for the 
establishment, for the igniting of an innovation economy. And 
Representative Boccieri, thank you for bringing us together so that 
people can share thoughts of what's happening today and where we can 
expand and extrapolate upon that progress in untold terms.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, Congressman Tonko, you're so right. And I know 
you and Congressman Kratovil believe like I do and like Teddy Roosevelt 
said, that the worst that you can do in a moment of decision is 
nothing. The energy policy that we have right now in the United States 
is failing us miserably because we have troops overseas right now that 
are putting their life on the line for a natural resource that we could 
become independent from if we just invest in our country and our 
people.
  Mr. TONKO. One of the main reasons I ran for this role in Congress 
was to establish a comprehensive energy policy, where we have a plan, 
where we act accordingly, where we update and implement that plan, and 
where it's all-inclusive. We haven't had that. And this is one solid 
way to grow jobs that are meaningful, where we are going to express and 
exercise our right to energy security, energy independence, and 
therefore, national security, which is critically important with the 
outcome here.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Congressman Kratovil, welcome.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Thank you all for being here. And it's so nice hearing 
my very articulate colleagues talk about this. Mr. Boccieri, thank you 
for bringing us together once again to talk about this. You know, you 
have mentioned a number of Presidential candidates in the last election 
that talked about the significance of cap-and-trade and talked about 
the significance of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But I 
think, you know, it's important that we give some additional historical 
perspective to this debate.
  You mentioned that what we are doing now is failing us. But it's been 
failing us for 40 years. We have been talking about reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil for the last 40 years. We've been talking 
about the significant impact this has on us in terms of our national 
security. We've been talking about the need to move towards renewable 
energy and renewable fuel and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, 
and yet, we haven't done anything really substantial until now.
  Every President since Richard Nixon has advocated the need for our 
energy independence. In 1974, Nixon promised we could achieve it within 
6 years. Gerald Ford said we can do it in 10 years. And Jimmy Carter 
pledged to wage the moral equivalent of war to achieve it.
  And yet, once again, as years have gone by, we haven't had the 
political will to do what needed to be done to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. And getting back to some of the comments that Mr. 
Perriello made about the political part of it, you know, the bottom 
line is, at some point we do have to put politics aside and recognize 
that we are here for a reason. We are here to represent the best 
interests of the people of this country and not to represent 
necessarily simply our political parties. And you are right to say that 
these initiatives came, many of these ideas, cap-and-trade, came from 
the other side of the aisle. And yet, when we pushed that forward, we 
got very little support from the other side of the aisle.

                              {time}  2210

  Now, we did have some courageous Republicans in the House who voted 
with us. I think there were probably seven or eight who voted with us, 
but the bottom line is that we have been talking about this for years, 
and it was time that we did something about it, and I'm happy to be 
here with those of you who were willing to do what needed to be done to 
move us towards a better future for this country.
  With that, I'll yield back.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, Congressman Kratovil, I know you believe in 
America, that you believe in American innovation and that you believe 
an energy policy that creates jobs here in America, that moves us away 
from our dependence on foreign oil and that makes us energy independent 
within a number of years is the right energy policy and the right 
economic policy for our country, which is about investing in our 
people, investing in our ingenuity and in our innovation.
  You know, the most that we have at stake in this is the fact that 
Congressman Perriello, Congressman Kratovil, Congressman Tonko, and 
Congressman McMahon--we all have families, and you think about where 
our moms and dads have come from in terms of what they have seen and 
the changes they've seen. They've seen us put a man on the Moon. We can 
do the same in 10 years. Our families have seen a lot, and we can 
produce the type of innovation with the right policy in this country 
that will move our Nation forward.
  I know, Congressman McMahon, you believe in our Nation's national 
security. I'll yield to you.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Congressman Boccieri.
  I know we all do. We all, I think, take serious umbrage at the fact 
that the Republicans throw out these myths, these lies and these 
prevarications when it's about national security. Let's look at one.
  I mentioned how they talked about what it would cost every homeowner, 
and they said it would be $3,100 a year. This was a study that was 
disproved. We mentioned that earlier. Yet the Congressional Budget 
Office, the independent authority that they rely on so often for their 
facts, at least whenever it favors their position, has said that, under 
our clean energy and national security bill, every homeowner in this 
country on average, between now and 2020, will pay $175 extra because 
of this bill, not per year but over the whole course of the next 11 
years.
  In many places, like the Northeast, because of how we get our energy 
already and because of the infrastructure we have in place, our costs 
will actually go down $5 a month by 2018. Think about that. Some of us 
will save money, at most $175. Those rates would go up anyway.
  On the other side, when it's about national security, when it's about 
young men and women who are risking their lives in the uniforms of our 
country, they're throwing out lies. You know, I just want to tell you 
one quick story about what happened to me today, and it really struck 
home. It's about a visit I had in my office.
  You know, for 50 years, Staten Island was the site of the municipal 
garbage dump for the City of New York. Congressman Tonko knows the 
story well because he was very involved in environmental politics up in 
Albany when he was an assemblyman. It took us 50 years to get it 
closed, and it was 2,200 acres of the largest landfill in the history 
of the world. Today, because of this law that we passed in the House--
and hopefully it will get passed in the Senate--a company came to see 
me because they want to put solar panels on that landfill.
  Wouldn't that be a great American story? It would be a great success 
story for Staten Island, for the people I represent on Staten Island, 
for the City of New York, and for our country that, in a short period 
of time, within 10 years, you could go from a disgusting landfill and 
environmental nightmare to a place that is producing energy through 
solar panels or windmills as our borough president has suggested. What 
a great thing. That's America. That's the America we grew up in. That's 
the America we believe in.

[[Page 20236]]

  That's the America you've spoken about, Congressman Boccieri, 
Congressman Perriello, Congressman Kratovil, and Congressman Tonko. 
That's the America that we came to Washington to fight for. That's the 
America that the Republicans have turned their backs on, and that's the 
America that's worth fighting for.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, you're so right, Congressman McMahon. We all 
believe in the hope and promise of America, that with the right 
investment and with the right guidance with respect to public policy in 
this country, we can become energy independent and can create jobs here 
in America.
  You know, we hear the raw fear that the other side spews out to try 
to scare people away from supporting the public policy that, in its 
essence, was truly a Republican idea in the very beginning. We hear the 
facts about rates, and we talk about how this is going to, you know, 
charge up rates and about how these government inspectors are going to 
show up and check on your light bulbs in your hot tub. I mean, this is 
utterly ridiculous.
  First and foremost, in the State of Ohio, we have a Public Utilities 
Commission. The electric industry and other industries in the State of 
Ohio are regulated industries. They can't just arbitrarily walk in and 
raise rates. There has to be a justification. Our Public Utilities 
Commission, PUCO, is a function of State government, and we have 
empowered State governments in this legislation to make sure that these 
big utility companies are not going to run away as they transition to 
alternative forms of energy. So rates will be held in line. Despite 
what our colleagues on the other side will say, there are no taxes in 
this bill.
  John McCain said it's a free-market approach, and it won't cost the 
American taxpayers. I believe John McCain was right. He introduced a 
cap-and-trade bill three times with Senator Joe Lieberman. So this is 
about putting America first.
  Congressman Perriello, I know you have a few words.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Well, I just wanted to pick up on what Mr. McMahon was 
talking about as far as turning trash into energy. We're trying to do 
that in my district in southern Virginia. We're even trying to turn 
waste into energy. And by that, I mean manure. We've got poultry waste. 
We've got cattle farmers ready to turn this into power. Talk about a 
country that was built on the idea of making lemonade out of lemons. 
With what some of our forefathers were handed, this is it. We're 
literally making energy out of that.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that by 2015 this 
will deliver over $1 billion to our farmers; and in the decades ahead, 
it could be up to $15 billion a year extra to our farmers. That's 
because our farmers are the hardest working people in this country. 
They're ready to be those freedom fighters.
  There's one other thing I wanted to mention. You talked about rates. 
Not only are there lies out there about what it's going to do to rates 
and taxes, but the most important thing, I think, in this bill and the 
one thing I hear so much about, whether it's from farmers or from 
business owners or just from people who are trying to keep the lights 
on in their own homes, is the crazy fluctuation in prices. You know, 
all of a sudden, you're at $4.60 a gallon last summer. Then you're down 
to $2. Then you're heading back up to $3 a gallon.
  That fluctuation is driven, in part, by these speculators out there 
who are just gambling on the kitchen table budgets of the American 
people. For years and years, both parties have known that this huge 
Enron loophole was out there which was driving the speculation. For 
once, we finally went after it, and we actually protected consumers in 
this bill.
  The CBO figures, which Mr. McMahon mentioned, about there being a 
$12-a-month increase is the maximum it would be. That's assuming we do 
nothing to reduce our energy consumption, and it doesn't take into 
account that we're going after these speculators who have been driving 
up the price. These people are making billions of dollars at the 
expense of the average American home. That's part of what we've done 
here, too, which is to go out and to protect consumers. So it's a smart 
bill.
  You know, one quick thing before I yield back: people sometimes say, 
Have you read the 1,200 pages in this bill? Then I say, Have you? 
There's a lot of good stuff in there. There's a lot of good stuff 
that's going after these speculators and that's protecting consumers. 
Some of the best things for our farmers are in those 1,200 pages.
  There are a lot of serious people here who were looking out for 
consumers, for farmers and for small business owners. Mr. Boccieri 
fought hard to get more money in this bill for manufacturing areas that 
have been hit hard with jobs going overseas. There's a lot of good 
stuff in here.
  As Americans, we know that freedom isn't free. Part of that means you 
step up to the duties of citizenship, that you go out there and that 
you read the bill. Look at it as an opportunity, as an invitation to be 
part of this great freedom struggle for our country. We can do this, 
and this is a great step in that direction.
  With that, I yield back.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I thank the Congressman for his passion.
  Before we wrap this up this evening, we've got to hear from a young, 
bright mind from Ohio.
  Congressman Ryan, thank you for joining us tonight. Give us some of 
your words.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Boccieri.
  I was reading an article--and I was telling the Congressman from 
Virginia this. There was an article in The New York Times today, 
because a lot of people in our districts are like, Well, you know, 
China is not going to abide by this, and India is not going to have to 
deal with this, and we're out on our own here, and we've got to compete 
against these people.
  There are actually provisions in the bill on steel and paper and some 
other things that do control imports coming from these other countries; 
but today in The New York Times, there was an article about this town 
in China where there was a big factory that was poisoning the people 
who lived within the area of this factory, and these people were going 
to the hospital. They were sick. They were nauseous. It was a bad 
scene. It was because of the pollution that was coming out of this 
factory; 400,000 people a year die in China because of air pollution.

                              {time}  2220

  And at some point, based on China's long history, they have these 
uprisings among the people, the government squelches it and tries to 
fix the problem. So if you have 400,000 people a year dying in China, 
at some point those people are going to want clean air. At some point.
  I say this. Let China sleep for a couple of years. Let us get ahead 
of the curve. Let us make these investments and then produce these 
products, and finally we can export products to China that they're 
going to want because their people are demanding it.
  So I wanted to come down and join this chorus because I think this is 
an opportunity for places like Youngstown, Ohio; Akron, Ohio; Canton, 
Ohio; northeast Ohio, where we have a manufacturing base in Virginia or 
New York or wherever the case may be to finally export things. Eight 
thousand component parts to a windmill, four hundred tons of steel. 
Solar panels have all of these complex components. We can do this. This 
is opportunity. Let's see it like it is.
  And I tell folks back in our district, we have a Lordstown plant, a 
Lordstown General Motors plant, that is going to make this new car, 
Chevy Cruze. Why are they putting it at Lordstown? Why are they 
building the Chevy Cruze? Forty miles to the gallon. That's why. It's a 
green car.
  Let's read the tea leaves here. This is where the country is going. 
This is where we need to be. We can finally be at a point, Mr. 
Boccieri, where we export products to China and we make money and 
create jobs here. That's what this is about. And we can talk about 
clean air and climate change, and I believe in all of that and I think 
it's great, but the bottom line is this means jobs for northeast Ohio.

[[Page 20237]]

  And I think the more we talk about that, the more we recognize that, 
the more we plug our businesses in. Mr. Boccieri got a $30 billion 
amendment in to help the auto industry convert over to alternative 
energy. Those are the things we need to do, and those are the things 
that are in this bill.
  So I yield back, but I think this is opportunity, and if we see it as 
opportunity, it will work for us.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Congressman Ryan. You're exactly right that 
the pillars of this legislation are about creating jobs in America, 
moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, and making our Nation 
more secure. National security is a big issue.
  Congressman Kratovil.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. You're absolutely right. There was a lot of talk in the 
bill about climate change, and that was certainly a significant part of 
it. But the bottom line is, what was more important to me in terms of 
voting for this is exactly what you said, national security and 
creating American jobs. And the energy bill clearly presents an 
incredible opportunity to spur innovation and create new jobs in this 
country, and that was one of the big reasons that I supported it.
  Also, I want to go back to something Mr. Perriello said about the 
fluctuation in prices. Again, the irony in this country is that 
oftentimes we are faced with a crisis and we deal with whatever that 
crisis is but we never deal with the underlying issue that causes the 
crisis.
  And you were talking about the gas prices. A year ago, when the gas 
prices were $4 a gallon, the entire population in America was saying, 
My gosh. What is going on? What are we going to do about this? It's 
outrageous that we're paying $4 a gallon. It's outrageous that we're 
sending money overseas to the people that seek to destroy us. What are 
we going to do about it?
  And then a year later, people in this Chamber have apparently--on the 
other side of the aisle, apparently forgotten.
  Well, my answer to that is we should never forget that if we were 
paying $4 a gallon for gas last year, we could be paying $4 a gallon 
tomorrow. That has not changed unless we take responsibility and do 
what we should have done 40 years ago and started making an effort to 
have energy independence and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
  We shouldn't get angry. We should get even and do what we need to do 
as Americans to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That's exactly the point, that if we do nothing--
which is what our friends on the other side of the aisle want us to do 
is nothing. We know that over the last 8 years, $1,100 increase in 
energy costs. So keep doing that, you know what you're going to get.
  What we're saying is we can't afford to keep doing nothing. We have 
to do something. And what we're doing is reducing our dependency. Give 
us control over what we're doing. We have no control in many ways when 
we're depending on sheiks in the Middle East. So, to your point, we've 
got to take control of this issue.
  We're Americans, for God's sake. And you know what? When have we 
started in this country to be afraid of doing big things? Let's wrap 
our arms around this energy issue and take control of it and take it 
under the umbrella of the United States of America and stop all of 
these problems. You're exactly right. If gas is $4 a gallon this 
summer, we would be getting calls from our constituents, What are you 
doing? And you know what? If it wasn't for the recession, it probably 
would be. So next year, there will be $4-a-gallon gas, and hopefully 
we're moving along to fix this problem.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Tonko, why don't you take a minute and wrap it up.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you for bringing us together, and it's great to 
develop this colloquy with our colleagues here in the House, but I 
can't help but wonder which of us would have the opportunity to serve 
in this House if we pledged at election time to make certain that we 
develop jobs in competing nations for developing green energy 
innovation? Which of us would serve here? Which of us would serve here 
if we pledged to send dollars to some of the most troubled spots in the 
world that find us defending freedom-loving nations against some of 
these forces around the globe? We would be rejected resoundingly by 
that electorate.
  Well, that's what's happening here. The agents of status quo are 
content to continue this effort to have other nations build the 
renewable resources out there. They would be content to have the 
American public send tons of their hard-earned dollars into the 
economies of the Mideast on which we rely for well over 60 percent of 
our oil supply. That is unacceptable.
  And we can do it cleaner, we can do it greener, we can do it through 
American resources that develop American jobs to respond to the energy 
crises around the world. We can become that go-to Nation that will be 
the exporter of energy intellect, energy innovation, energy ideas. Just 
like we won the race in the 1960s for the space race.
  We need to win this race. We don't have a choice to enter in. I think 
that choice has been made because there is a competitive edge already 
that's being developed with other nations out there. We need to go 
forward with an aggressive investment.
  The investment here is to combat a huge deficit that was inherited by 
this administration, by the Obama administration. It was driven high 
and it started with a surplus. They spent away that surplus. They drove 
us into a deficit situation, and now it is necessary for us to invest 
in an innovation economy that creates jobs.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. I thank the gentlemen for joining us tonight. This has 
been a very intriguing dialogue, and I hope we garner a deeper 
appreciation for what it means to become energy independent. You all 
have the right vision. Now we have to find the courage in the Senate. 
We have to find 60 patriots in the Senate who will stand up and put 
America first and suggest that this is about producing and creating 
jobs here in our country, protecting our national security, and moving 
away from our dependence on foreign oil.
  So with that, I will yield to my good friend from New York as we wrap 
it up.
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you for convening the Freshmen Power Hour, and 
thank you also for having such a special guest in Congressman Ryan 
gracing us with his eloquence here, with his maturity and wisdom from 
so many years here in Congress.
  You guys have said it all here tonight. This is, quite frankly, a no-
brainer. Cap-and-trade was a Republican idea. It makes sense. It's 
market principles. It's about national security. It's about jobs, 
manufacturing good jobs for electricians and carpenters and plumbers 
and steamfitters and engineers and scientists. It is about our 
environment, too.
  You know, Congressman Ryan, when you were talking about the people in 
China saying, Hey, we want clean air, in Staten Island in New York, we 
have the highest lung cancer rates in America. The people of Staten 
Island and Brooklyn and New York City, we want clean air, too. So it's 
about the environment as well.
  But this is a bill that allows us to do all of those things in a 
uniquely American way, the right way. I'm glad we voted for it in the 
House. I'm disappointed at the Republicans that they keep lying about 
it, but I hope, as you said, 60 patriots in the Senate will find a way 
to get this done and we'll send this bill to the President's desk and 
get it signed.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Speaker, let's get this done for America.
  We yield back.

                          ____________________