[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10196-10202]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         ENERGY AND THE CLIMATE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Maffei). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it was enjoyable to listen here to my 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle with their version of what 
they would like the debate to be about.
  I do hope that the American public zeros in on what we are saying 
here tonight, listens to my friends on the other side of the aisle, and 
draws their own conclusions. This is the most important discussion that 
we are going to have in this session of Congress.
  Now, my good friend, the gentlewoman from Minnesota, doesn't think 
there are any problems with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the 
atmosphere. It's interesting to listen to her say that something that 
was naturally occurring simply couldn't be harmful, ignoring the fact 
that we have the highest concentrations of carbon dioxide in the 
atmosphere for two-thirds of a million years. The consensus of the 
scientific community, not people making things up on the floor of the 
House, is that this has been profoundly influenced by human activity 
starting with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, where we started 
consuming huge quantities of coal, burning fossil fuels, accelerating 
that over time. The consensus of the scientific community is that this 
is, in fact, a serious problem.
  The debate is going far beyond sort of the modest disputes that 
people may take back and forth from one another that it may not work. 
The new Secretary of the Department of Energy has likened it to 
somebody who has been given an assessment by an engineer that their 
house is in danger of falling down, that it has an 80 percent chance of 
falling down or burning up because of faulty wiring. And the response, 
before a rational person spends huge sums of money, they might get a 
second opinion. And if that second opinion says, yes, that house is 
going to burn up or fall down in the not too distant future, it would 
be not irrational to maybe get a third or a fourth. But as Secretary 
Chu points out, it's pretty risky business to run through all the 
engineering professionals until you find one outlier who says forget 
about it, don't worry, your house isn't going to fall down. None of us, 
none of us, would treat our family that way.
  I am embarrassed for them that they continue to trot out the number 
of somehow a $3,100 cost on the American public according to an MIT 
research analysis. Well, as I pointed out during the debate on the 
budget before the floor of the House of Representatives, that is a 
hopelessly tortured interpretation of some decent scientific research. 
The author of that study, John Reilly, sent, on the 1st of April, to 
John Boehner a letter setting the record straight. Mr. Reilly indicated 
that it was wrong in so many ways, it's hard to begin. The fact is that 
they totally misrepresented the thrust of the research and they assumed 
that none of the benefits would flow back to the economy or the 
families in question.

                              {time}  2145

  Professor Reilly pointed out that that's a bogus number, that it is 
perhaps, at most, one-tenth of that amount, according to their 
research. And yet the Republican leadership and Republican members keep 
coming to the floor citing erroneous information, but it is symptomatic 
of the approach that they have taken to this critical issue. They 
ignore the fact that we are facing dramatic changes to our economy, to 
the health and future of our family, to our way of life, to the 
environment, if we continue down this path.
  Sir Nicholas Stern issued a report on behalf of the British 
Government that indicated, according to their analysis, that the cost 
of inaction is five times greater than the threat of moving forward and 
making a change.
  So it's one-fortieth of what Boehner is talking about and the other 
Republican talking points, but they are not comparing it to what is 
happening to our environment now and where this path is going with 
rising temperatures, with permafrost that is no longer perma, roads 
buckling, changing patterns of disease, insects, problems with forests 
that are infected, coastal areas washed away, drought, loss of 
snowpack.
  These are things that we are facing right now in the United States. 
The high likelihood is that it is a result of our dependence on fossil 
fuels, greenhouse gases, failure to act.
  And if we follow this path, we are going to pay a much greater price 
over time. But it is not true that there are no benefits to this 
alternative.
  You know, if our friends on the other side of the aisle would ignore 
the advice of the Republican leadership that they not be legislators, 
that they be communicators, if they would ignore that, roll up their 
sleeves, work in the committees of jurisdiction, we would have an 
opportunity to have the give-and-take. We would be able to focus on 
optimal ways to make sure that the fees for carbon pollution are 
channeled back to the American public and incent new matters of 
economic development.
  We are seeing an explosion in solar and wind energy. We have an 
opportunity to not only create new industries, but of making America no 
longer the greatest waster of energy in the world. We waste more energy 
than any country in the world at great cost to American families.
  If the Republicans join with us, roll up their sleeves and look at 
alternative ways of dealing with the fees on carbon pollution, we would 
be able to provide opportunities for a whole host of new products, 
techniques, buildings and at the same time we can reduce the energy 
costs of American families.
  It is true that if the massive polluters of carbon pollution into the 
atmosphere, if they are finally charged a fee, if it is no longer free 
for them to pollute the atmosphere with carbon like we did with sulfur 
dioxide, like we did with CFCs--and, I must note, at that time industry 
analysts, the Republicans, apologists, some of the business 
associations, claim that acid rain, the trading, was going to wreck the 
environment. They claimed that the health benefits were not supported 
by science.
  Well, the OMB has found that the acid rain program accounted for the 
largest quantified human health benefits in history: $70 billion 
annually, more than any federally-implemented program in the last 10 
years with benefits exceeding costs more than 40-1. Likewise, when we 
were concerned about ozone-depleting chemicals, DuPont warned that the 
United States' costs would exceed $135 billion and ``entire industries 
would fold.'' Well, the actual costs were almost 100 times less, and 
not only didn't DuPont fold, but they made millions of dollars selling 
substitutes for phased-out chemicals.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that there will be some attention from the 
American public, attention to what the consequences will be for a fee 
on carbon pollution, the benefits for stopping the progress of global 
warming, the benefits for a whole new array of industries and 
practices, ways to make families safer, strengthen America, reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, and move us into a path in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I am joined this evening by a number 
of my distinguished colleagues who are leaders in the efforts to 
protect the environment and the American public and to chart a new 
direction for environmental protection and the revitalization of our 
economy, creating jobs and saving the taxpayer money.
  One that I would like to turn to right now is my friend Paul Tonko 
from New York, who came to Congress recently, but he has over two 
decades of administrative, legislative and policy experience. I have 
been pleased to work with

[[Page 10197]]

him on these initiatives to share the program with him, and I would 
yield to my friend to provide some of his insights into this issue.
  Mr. TONKO. I appreciate the gentleman from Oregon, and he obviously 
has an outstanding voice speaking to what is the smart approach to the 
future of this country and certainly to the impact that we can make on 
American households and on American businesses.
  The country faces, undeniably, economic energy and certainly climate 
crises, and this is a time for a plan of action.
  I believe that as we have just heard, there are these opportunities 
that are shelf ready, available to American consumers, to American 
businesses today. There are emerging technologies as we speak. This 
requires an immense investment.
  And if there is a strategy that has been promoted here by the 
President that has been advanced by the Speaker of this House, Nancy 
Pelosi, and endorsed by the leadership, it's to move forward in a way 
that is intellectually honest, looking at the factors out there that 
exist. The human elements that are causing an impact through global 
warming, through climate change that are growing the carbon footprint.
  The President knows that the down payment of the Recovery Act was 
just the beginning of the story. He knows that in order to resolve the 
many crises facing this country, including, primarily, an economic 
crisis, we need to be smart about our plan of action. He knows that it 
will require an investment, an investment through R&D, of research and 
development that will enable us to produce savings.
  And we hear an awful lot of talk about a tax being imposed. The tax 
that is imposed is coming through billions of dollars, hundreds of 
billions of dollars paid by American companies, by American consumers, 
by households, that is going to places like the Middle East and 
Venezuela, paying for fossil-based fuels that are polluting our 
environment, that are driving downward, through these crises, the 
American economy.
  We have an option out there, and that option is to be smart, to go 
forward with American-produced power, done through American jobs, to 
save and grow American jobs. That is a good and clever strategy. We can 
do this by embracing the intellectual capacity of this great Nation, 
shelf-ready opportunities of which I am quite familiar.
  Certainly, when I was over at the Energy Research and Development 
Authority in New York State, I witnessed firsthand how policies and 
programs were implemented by that authority that is nationally 
inspected, and it was through the retrofits that we had done with the 
farming community, with the business community, with households, 
through building efforts, that we were able to achieve immense savings.
  These savings are dollars and benefits to the consuming public. They 
are job creating in terms of dynamics. When we look at the renewable 
standards, the renewable energy standards that are part of the package 
to respond to the energy crises of this country, we are talking about 
the creation of some 300,000 jobs.
  When we look at the energy efficiency resource standards, we are 
looking at some 220,000 jobs. When we look at the economic savings of 
the energy jobs creation, the green-collar job creation, we are talking 
about a savings of some of $100 billion. In the area of energy 
efficiency, a savings of $170 billion. So these are real dollars. They 
are savings.
  What I think our friends who are speaking so vociferously against 
this proposal do not comprehend, that savings and cleanup of our 
environment are benefits that are immeasurable at this point in time, 
and this economy requires that sort of investment, that sort of policy 
creation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Absolutely spot on, and I hope that you can stay with 
us.
  We have been joined by a number of our colleagues here, and I would 
like to be able to move as quickly as I can to include them, because we 
have truly outstanding leaders.
  I want to turn next to John Hall, with whom I have been privileged to 
serve on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
Warming.
  Our colleague, Congressman Hall, has been a leader in the 
environmental movement long before he came to Congress. In fact, my 
wife has music that he recorded, a song that maybe he will sing here 
from the floor, but a man truly ahead of his time, multitalented and 
passionate about how we save the environment.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer. If you don't mind, I 
will confine myself to lyrics tonight.
  Like you, I have noticed over the years that industries that are 
about to be regulated cry wolf and say that jobs will be lost.
  As I recall when seat belts were first proposed for cars, the 
automobile industry said: Oh, you are going to put us out of business. 
You are going to throw people out of work. And, instead, it created a 
whole new industry of building and installing and maintaining seat 
belts. The same thing with air bags in cars: Oh, you are going to put 
us out of work. You are going to cause a big loss of jobs.
  And, instead, SRS and other companies sprang up inventing, designing, 
installing and maintaining air bags in cars. The same thing goes for 
scrubbers on coal power plants and so on and so forth.
  So I would like to speak as a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee because the surface transportation bill that 
we are going to work on this year will be critical to solving the 
climate change problem. This upcoming surface transportation 
reauthorization is a historic opportunity to take us forward toward a 
21st century solution and a 21st century transportation network and 
begin to deal with climate change.
  If this bill does not focus, not only on building and repairing roads 
and bridges, which is important and does create jobs, but also on 
increasing the share of funding going toward mass transit, then it will 
be a missed opportunity.
  If the bill does not increase funding for alternative modes of 
transportation like bicycles and pedestrian walking paths and intercity 
passenger rail, then it will be a missed opportunity. If this bill does 
not change the way we think about land use planning so that we focus on 
smart growth, good land use planning principles and transit-oriented 
development and complete streets, we will have missed an opportunity.
  And if this bill does not encourage the use of renewable fuels on 
electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, it will be a missed opportunity.

                              {time}  2200

  I must remark that a couple of weeks ago I drove one of the test 
vehicles that was here outside that gets 250 miles per gallon in the 
plug-in hybrid version. And the pure electric version, I'm sure you saw 
it here, I won't mention the brand name because I don't want to be seen 
as endorsing a particular company, but we could find it on the Internet 
with a little search. The pure electric version currently gets a 70-
mile-per-hour top speed and 100-mile range, well within the commuting 
range and the speed necessities of most commuters. So we need to look 
at all these things that, hopefully, will do that in this bill.
  Furthermore, there's a great opportunity not just to mitigate climate 
change effects which have environmental and public health benefits, but 
also in developing new technologies which cannot or should not be 
outsourced. We should be creating jobs right here the United States and 
reinvigorating our economy. We, the country who put a man on the Moon, 
should be leading the way in these new technologies and not conceding 
that lead, new technologies to other countries.
  So I will stay around to take part in the discussion for a little 
while. But I appreciate, Congressman Blumenauer, your organizing this 
hour, and thank you for inviting me to be a part of it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I deeply appreciate your comments, your insights. 
We'll worry about the music later.

[[Page 10198]]

  But it is something that you have helped me with, some of the 
insights that you've offered on our work on the Global Warming 
Committee, and I appreciate your joining us.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Congressman Himes, a new Member of Congress, but 
somebody who has been involved with community development and finance 
for a number of years at the local level in Connecticut, has already 
hit the ground running, being actively involved in these debates and 
deeply appreciate your willingness to enter into this discussion this 
evening.
  Mr. HIMES. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am 
deeply honored to be standing on this floor where, for over a century 
and a half, our predecessors have taken the tough decisions, made the 
hard choices to set the American economy up for greatness. I'm talking 
about the investment in the highway system. I'm talking about the 
investment in the Internet, which has opened up vast new swaths of our 
economy. And we have that kind of opportunity now. In fact, we have 
that challenge right now. And the question is, will we find the will to 
rise to that challenge?
  And I want to confine my remarks tonight to a very, very important 
topic, which is the fact that we have a renewable energy resource that 
is clean, cheap, abundant and available right now, by which of course I 
refer to the energy that we don't use because we conserve it, because 
we take advantage of the ugly fact that we are far too inefficient in 
our use of energy.
  There is a history to this. We would simply be accelerating something 
that has been true now for decades. The Alliance to Save Energy 
estimates that without the efficiency gains that we were forced to make 
starting in 1973, when foreign nations decided to force us to make 
these efficiency gains, that we would use 50 percent more energy than 
we used to. And there's a lesson here. There is a lesson here that we 
can continue, not because a foreign country forces us to do it, but 
that we can choose to affirmatively capture this readily available 
energy resource.
  Let me comment on a couple of ideas and areas that I happen to know 
well, having worked on the rehabilitation of this country's affordable 
housing stock for many years. The fact is that roughly 40 percent of 
the energy that we use in this country is used in our built 
environment, in our homes, our building, our commercial facilities, and 
we operate far less efficiently than we might.
  At Enterprise Community Partners, we would do a rehabilitation of a 
100-year-old tenement, 5-, 6-story tenement in New York City, built at 
a time when coal was pennies per ton and, therefore, builders and 
architects didn't think about efficiency. We would rehabilitate that 
structure and take 60 or 70 percent of the energy usage out of that 
building, 60 to 70 percent out a building which represents collectively 
40 percent of the this country's energy usage.
  You can't always achieve 60 or 70 percent. In our homes we achieve 
something; when we weatherize we achieve something like 30 percent 
energy savings. And I'm delighted and proud that the Recovery Act that 
passed on this floor made available $1 billion for weatherization 
around this country.
  I was holding a caulk gun a mere 36 hours ago helping to weatherize a 
home in Bridgeport, Connecticut, where not only would we reduce the 
energy used in that home, but we would create a healthier home for the 
individual. And as it happened, these programs target low-income 
individuals, and so we would cut their energy bill substantially. And 
in this particular home, this woman was struggling to pay her bills. 
And if we could take 30 percent off of her utility bills, that would 
make all the difference between the kind of food she could buy, whether 
she could take some time off, whether she might educate her children. 
We can do this. And I'm delighted to say that as part of this much 
broader effort to rise to the generational challenge of our day, we 
will be submitting legislation very soon that will require the use of 
green building standards in HUD-subsidized housing; that will provide 
financing mechanisms which bridge a gap which has existed for far too 
long, a guarantee which recognizes the fact that you can spend a little 
bit of extra money, not a lot, a little bit of extra money to build 
green, but that you quickly get that money back in reduced utility and 
power bills in 2, 3 and 4 years.
  This mechanism would simply guarantee lending associated with that 
small increment of additional capital that will very rapidly be repaid 
through reduced operating costs.
  This bill, we hope will drop this week and, hopefully, will take a 
very big step towards addressing what is 40 percent of the energy usage 
in this country. So I'm just as excited as possible to stand here with 
my colleagues to say that we will rise to the generational challenge of 
our era.
  My colleagues on the other side of this floor often are fond of 
asking us what sorts of burdens are we placing on our children and our 
grandchildren. The reality is that the energy consumption and use that 
this country does right now places a tremendous burden in health, in 
costs for remediation, in pollution, in further subservience to foreign 
energy sources on to our children. We have done this for too long. We 
are presented with a generational challenge that, on this floor, for 
150 years, has been met by wise men and women who stood up and said we 
will take the hard decisions.
  Change is never easy. But we will take the hard decisions because our 
children deserve and should expect nothing less from us.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very, very much. And I appreciate your 
point about the cheapest kilowatt is the kilowatt that we don't expend, 
that we don't have to build the coal-fired plant or even a solar 
collector. And we have watched what has happened over the course of the 
last 30 years because business now in the United States does produce 
more product per kilowatt than it did before.
  This is not going to be easy. And it's not going to be without cost 
and consequence. But I am absolutely convinced that the hardest part is 
not going to be the technology, but it's cutting through the 
misrepresentation and the misunderstandings and, in some cases, I 
think, willful misrepresentation of the facts.
  I was stunned to hear the gentlelady from Minnesota, from the floor 
of the well tonight, declare that carbon dioxide concentrations were 
not a problem because carbon dioxide appears naturally in the 
atmosphere; this coming after the EPA has finally owned up to its 
responsibilities and acknowledged the fact that the concentration, the 
greater concentration of carbon dioxide is, in fact, a threat to human 
health.
  Mercury occurs naturally in the environment. But when it is 
concentrated in the wrong places, it can be deadly. And we need to just 
be able to get to the heart of some of these issues and sweep aside 
some of these misrepresentations that, frankly, are dangerous, if 
they're not refuted.
  We've been joined this evening by my colleague, Congressman Massa 
from New York, a Naval Academy graduate, a retired Navy commander, 
serves on a number of committees, but important for the discussion this 
evening, he's on the House Agriculture Committee, and on the 
subcommittee that deals with conservation, credit, energy and research, 
both in his committee assignment and the work that he's done, in his 
area of upstate New York, or not upstate, I'm not saying it right. I 
know where it is, to the west. And Congressman, we welcome some 
observations and comments that you would have.

                              {time}  2210

  Mr. MASSA. Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here tonight, 
and it is a privilege to speak in a space that has seen the great 
debates that have

[[Page 10199]]

shaped this country, and now we embark on just such a debate.
  The reality is I rise today with a unique perspective, frankly, from 
a small town in western New York State, in the heart of Upstate New 
York, my hometown of Corning, New York. I am reminded of the arguments 
and debates of the early 1970s when we realized that the crushing 
burden of smog that obscured the buildings of our great cities like New 
York and Los Angeles was comprised largely of nitrous oxide, 
ironically, another naturally occurring chemical but, when concentrated 
in parts per million above 30, became deadly. Some of us in this 
Chamber are old enough to remember, looking out at television scenes 
and, in fact, living in our great metropolises where we could not see a 
half a mile on a smoggy day, and yet the scientists of this great 
Nation went to work and understood that it was largely the nitrous 
oxide being emitted from unregulated internal combustion engines that 
was literally choking us to death.
  Those same scientists, many of them in my hometown of Corning, New 
York, invented the catalytic converter, and found a way through that 
process to remove nitrous oxide from the exhaust streams of 
automobiles. When that solution was laid before chambers like this and 
before legislatures all over this country, it was deemed, as it often 
is deemed by my close and intimate friends and colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, as attacks. It was said to be a job-killing 
innovation that would destroy the automobile industry, that would drive 
millions from their jobs. Yet I come from a town that was fundamentally 
transformed by that technology and by the provisions of the Clean Air 
Act of the early 1970s, interestingly enough, formulated largely by 
some of the same leaders who today stand to draw this country forward 
under a new cap-and-trade regime that will install and initiate the 
same revolutionary technologies because, where I come from, thousands 
of working-class Americans found new jobs in creating innovative 
technologies and in removing nitrous oxide to the manufacture of 
catalytic converters--one, two and sometimes four--which are today on 
every automobile manufactured in the United States of America, 
throughout Europe and in most of the Far East.
  The proof is as clear as the clean skies of Los Angeles where just 30 
years ago you could not see the Los Angeles bay from the skyscrapers 
that overlooked the Pacific Ocean. Yet the argument from my dear and 
intimate colleagues on the other side of the aisle is always to say 
``no.'' It is to say ``no'' at the opportunity of every great 
innovation this Nation in the world has stood to see every single time. 
It is scare the public. Tell them they'll be taxed, and stop 
technological innovation when, in fact, it is just that regime that 
will power this Nation well beyond the 21st century.
  The last 40 years have seen us move forward in information 
technology, and now we stand on the cusp of an entirely new economy 
based on jobs that cannot be exported and on environmental 
technologies. I come from a small town that has already lived and seen 
that. It is time for us to fear not. It is time for us to stand in the 
light of day and to tell the truth.
  For the first time in generations, almost a third of the House of 
Representatives is represented by those who are the sophomore and 
freshman class, who have been sent here with a mandate by the American 
people to do the work that needs to be done, not to stand and say 
``no'' and to be obscure and obstructionist but, rather, to get the job 
done. It is on our shoulders, not fearful of elections, not fearful of 
false facts, not fearful of lies and of insinuations and of distortions 
but, rather, to stand in the clear air, much of it created through the 
innovations that we saw in the Clean Air Act in the 1970s.
  It is an honor to stand and to be part of this great debate. Let the 
debate begin here and now with truth and clarity and forcefulness. 
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, and I appreciate your bringing this home 
in very real terms about what the upside has been and what you have 
seen in Corning as making a difference. Your point about some of the 
newer Members of Congress, I think, is well taken.
  I am struck by the range of talent that we've seen here this evening 
in terms of people who have been legislators, policymakers, 
businesspeople, musicians. We're about to hear from another colleague, 
Ben Ray Lujan from New Mexico. In a prior life, he was one of those 
people charged with actually getting it right in terms of regulation. 
He was chairman of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, and as 
commissioner, he worked to develop the renewable portfolio standard in 
New Mexico to increase their renewable energy production by New Mexico 
utilities to 20 percent by 2020. I'm hopeful that he can give some 
insights based on his experience as somebody who has been on the 
ground, working on it, bringing that knowledge to Congress.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Blumenauer, I'll tell you it's an honor to be here 
this evening and to be here with so many of our colleagues when we're 
talking about a new direction and about moving the country forward and 
about developing the jobs and policies that will truly transform the 
way we look at energy, at the way we deliver energy, and at the way we 
appreciate the resourcefulness of the American people.
  In a former life, not many years ago--actually, not many days ago--I 
had the opportunity and the privilege of serving on the New Mexico 
Public Regulatory Commission. It's the equivalent of public utility 
commissions around the country. In New Mexico a few years ago, we 
increased the renewable portfolio standard, the amount of energy that 
would be produced from utilities in the State of New Mexico, the amount 
of energy that would come from the sun and from the wind. We were 
looking to see how we could take advantage of those resources, 
resources that we know to be abundant all across the country, but it 
wasn't just a matter of talking about increasing the amount of energy 
from one particular source. It was about looking at the way that we 
could adopt technology and innovation, looking to see how we could 
ultimately lower the cost of utility bills for people around New 
Mexico.
  A lot of people have asked me, ``Well, Ben, when you talk about that 
and you say, `well, we're going to increase the amount of energy that's 
going to come from the sun and from the wind,' how, indeed, are you 
going to lower utility bills ultimately for the customers of New Mexico 
when they say that this technology is so expensive and that we're not 
sure how we're going to be able to move this renewable energy 
generation forward?''
  Well, what's interesting is, when you talk about natural gas and when 
you look to see the amount of a utility bill that that makes up and 
when you talk about the fuel source, it's about 60-65 percent of the 
utility bill when you're heating your home with natural gas. In New 
Mexico, it's something we depend on. When you talk about electricity 
generation and you look at that fuel source, it can range anywhere from 
25-35 percent of your utility bill. Well, what a novel thought.
  If we're able to utilize free fuel sources, a fuel source that comes 
from the sun and the wind--renewable resources--and you can eliminate 
that costly utility bill, it will ultimately drive those costs down. 
We'll be smarter about the technology that we're moving forward. We'll 
be smarter about the partners that we're engaging with.
  Our Los Alamos National Laboratory and national laboratories around 
the country are research institutions that are moving forward and are 
coming up with new technologies that are ultimately bringing down the 
cost of renewable energy, making it more resourceful, making it more of 
a reality, but making it happen.
  I've heard from a few of my colleagues who are concerned about rural 
parts of the country and how it would impact them if we move forward 
with the strong, renewable energy generation plan in the United States. 
Well, I come from a rural State. I come from a State where the rural 
electric cooperatives are participating in our renewable portfolio 
standard, the equivalent

[[Page 10200]]

of our renewable electricity standard that we're talking about.
  Just the other day, there was an announcement of a 30-megawatt new 
facility that is going to be built in a rural part of New Mexico, in 
the northeastern part of our State, creating up to 120-140 construction 
jobs. Not including that, we're also going to be creating a real 
working laboratory, a working environment for our students to go in and 
to take advantage of learning how to install these phenomenal 
resources, these large panels and how we're going to move that power. 
We're teaching these students how they can take advantage of jobs into 
the future.

                              {time}  2220

  But then teaching these students how they can take advantage of jobs 
into the future.
  We made it happen in New Mexico. We worked with our colleagues in 
Western States. We worked with colleagues across the East and to the 
West, working to make sure that we were implementing best practices.
  It's amazing what happens when you get new ideas and good ideas 
together. And you lean on the ingenuity and the perseverance of the 
American people. You know, when it comes to energy, the United States 
has always been a leader, and we need to be a leader when it comes to 
being smarter about the way we're generating power and the way that 
we're moving power.
  I heard from my good friend, Mr. Himes, talk about the importance of 
building standards and how the community can come together to make a 
difference in our homes. This last week, I was home and there is a 
group of students with the youth corps that has come together, and they 
are actually going to be building a new home for the Habitat for 
Humanity program for a woman in the community. It's going to be a green 
home. It's students getting together working with builders to learn how 
to build our buildings with these new, innovative ways and being 
smarter about the ways we're doing things. Ultimately, lower utility 
bills for this family, being able to send their kids and their family 
to school.
  It's so exciting, and you get so passionate when you talk about what 
can be done, and through the leadership with Speaker Pelosi, with the 
President, with the budget resolution, the commitment of the American 
Recovery Act towards a new energy future and a new energy certainty for 
the United States.
  It's amazing to be part of this, Mr. Blumenauer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. We appreciate you making a critical point about the 
difference between the price in what people pay on the bill and your 
notion of how we are more energy efficient, we're smarter, we have 
competition and the benefits that you, through your leadership, did in 
New Mexico and now over half the States have gone ahead following. And 
hopefully it's time the Federal Government is able to do that as well.
  I wonder, turning to Mr. Tonko, if, based on your experience, 
actually on the ground with work in the leadership in the legislative 
assembly of New York, chairing the committee and your work with the 
entity in New York dealing with energy efficiency, if there is 
something that stands out in your mind as an example that illustrates 
this principle that you think would give us a path of what we can 
expect in the future.
  Mr. TONKO. Obviously, a number of opportunities, and I thank you 
again, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Representative Blumenauer, for 
putting this forum together this evening.
  But I think immediately of opportunities to work with our business 
community with manufacturing, retrofitting it with energy-efficiency 
outcomes. That enables us to see that as a microcosm of activity that 
when engaged in full efforts, can really repower America in a way that 
produces jobs, cuts energy costs, and produces wonderful savings to our 
environment, and certainly to those manufacturers out there in 
businesses that struggle in this economy.
  I look at situations that the price tag for doing nothing means that 
we lose a market share to places like China, like Germany, like Korea. 
Doing nothing means losing jobs, energy, green collar jobs to those 
same nations. Doing nothing means continuing to be taxed in a way that 
sends money to Venezuela and the Mid East.
  But when you ask for a specific example, one that comes to mind also 
is retrofitting of the dairy industry in the State of New York. That 
was done through the auspices of NyCerta, the State Energy Research and 
Development Authority, while I was still at the New York State Assembly 
chairing the energy committee. We worked in tandem with the local 
utility, with National Grid. We worked with Cornell University with its 
efforts to retrofit that dairy sector with energy efficiency seen as 
the fuel of choice out there. Working with the energy service 
companies, working with a group of policymakers from within the State 
Assembly. All of that working in a team spirited way that had, as 
demonstration projects, two dairy farms. And without even adjusting the 
rate for the power that they utilize, they had achieved immense savings 
simply through reducing demand.
  And then that demonstration project with two farms was further 
extrapolated over 70 participants, all of whom had seen the same sorts 
of positive results, reducing demand severely.
  This is where we're at. We're at a cutting knowledge of opportunity. 
We're looking at embracing technology in a way that can allow us to 
practically produce change. That is about job creation. It's about 
consumer behavior adjustment. It's about the boldness of leadership. 
It's allowing us to develop the blueprints, the greenprints for 
tomorrow. And we have the capacity today. There are tons of practical 
examples.
  Even at NyCerta. A demonstration project with kinetic hydropower 
where the turbulence of the East River alongside Manhattan was 
producing power that was used in that given region. And there are 
theories suggesting that some 1,100 megawatts' worth of power statewide 
could be the result in New York State alone. Think of it: if we 
multiply that over the many States of this country; think of it if we 
make the investments that are asked of us here by doing this program in 
a way that caps the amount of pollution out there, rewards the good 
behavior and creates the resources to implement the science and 
technology that is within our grasp today.
  There is great potential here. Great job creation, great savings of 
energy, which is a precious commodity, and the ability to do an 
American-produced agenda--American-produced power to grow and retain 
American jobs in a way that creates a new segment of employment out 
there: employees who are green collar workers. Great potential for the 
country.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. As we're winding down, I would like to turn again to 
my colleague, Congressman Hall.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Thank you.
  I would like to emphasize jobs. It's astonishing to me that the 
chorus from the other side of the aisle here seems to be that we're 
going to lose jobs when in fact the U.S. Conference of Mayors released 
a study recently showing that renewable power generation alone will 
lead to the creation of over 4.2 million new jobs in manufacturing, 
legal, construction, engineering, consulting, and research sectors.
  And like my colleague, Mr. Himes, I recently spent a couple of days 
with my work gloves on and my jeans and a hard hat working doing 
retrofitting, weatherization of homes in my home county of Dutchess 
County of New York where last year the Dutchess County Community Action 
Program only retrofitted and weatherized 183 homes. This year, thanks 
to the stimulus package, they are looking at over a thousand homes 
already lined up. They are going to be hiring five times as many people 
to go out on those teams.
  In my district alone, there are many exciting new companies from low-
tech to high-tech. For example, Taylor Biomass Energy has an exciting 
new patent process that turns municipal solid waste, MSW, into clean-
burning gas for electricity generation using a process

[[Page 10201]]

that is carbon negative. The end result is 75 percent reduction in 
greenhouse gas emissions because when you take that trash, that organic 
household waste, whatever it is, goes into the landfill and turns into 
methane and goes out those upside-down J-shaped fences and goes out 
into the atmosphere is actually worse than carbon dioxide, 20 times 
worse.
  SpectraWatt, which has just announced a major investment in my 
district, is creating state-of-the-art solar technology, and they will 
be building solar panels which we hopefully will sell not only around 
the country, maybe to New Mexico, but also to other countries like 
India or China or Germany who right now are in the lead.
  Cities and towns are asking for help to do the same thing. The City 
of Beacon in my district just asked for funds which I was able to 
secure to install a new solar electric power system on their municipal 
building, developing a comprehensive plan for a city which recognizes 
the value of free energy and no emissions. It's sort of the win-win-win 
policy because it hires people to make the panels and it hires people 
to install them. And once they get past that initial payoff--and of 
course the higher the price of gas or diesel or electricity from other 
sources goes, then the better this looks.
  And they will also use it as an educational tool for the students in 
the City of Beacon, New York, to be able to see how renewable energy 
works.

                              {time}  2230

  And, lastly, I would just say, echoing Congressman Tonko's statements 
about tidal power and hydropower, that New York State alone, according 
to the Idaho National Laboratory Web site, which is an offshoot of the 
Department of Energy's Web site, has more than 4,000 low-head 
hydroelectric sites. Those are existing dams and waterfalls where water 
is falling every day by the ton and not being used, going to waste. And 
just by putting the properly sized turbines where water is already 
falling, they estimate that we could generate 12 megawatts of power. 
And think of the people it would hire. That was when you were speaking, 
Mr. Tonko, I wanted to make this comment that you are hiring electrical 
workers, you are hiring mechanics, you are hiring engineers, you are, 
in some cases, hiring attorneys because there are liability questions 
with orphan dams that need to be worked out. But you are hiring a wide 
spectrum of workers with different kinds of jobs, ranging from 
construction and electrical work, to sheet metal, to engineering and so 
on, and transportation jobs.
  And then not only that, but then you have a decentralized grid with a 
lot of smaller points of generation as opposed to having one huge note 
of generation and another huge note of consumption and worrying about 
blackouts occurring in between. So there are many reasons for us to go 
down this path, and one of them is that many, many jobs will be created 
by it.
  With that, I yield back.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Congressman Himes, any last words?
  Mr. HIMES. Well, I just reiterate. We see a tremendous commitment on 
this floor at this late hour to what I really believe is the legacy 
that we will leave for those who follow in our footsteps. I really 
believe that this is the generational challenge of our time. And we 
will be truthful about it; we will explain it to the American people. 
And we will act or we will fall prey to the misinformation, to the 
fear, to the anxiety that is rooted in the desire for political gain, 
but also in the natural fear that many people have of change.
  So I would just close with the notion that we need to stand united 
and go forward with this terribly important initiative.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your providing that context. I have been 
involved in the political process all my life. I have watched people 
meet challenges. I have watched people come up to the edge and simply 
not have the wherewithal to follow through.
  This seems to me to be one of the areas that is most exciting because 
of the leadership that has been articulated here on the floor. We are 
finding that actually we have to run to keep up with the public. We 
have 906 cities across America that have decided they weren't going to 
wait for the Bush administration, they were moving forward. Each of us 
have cities, college campuses, churches and synagogues in our district 
that are rolling up their sleeves and willing to move forward, and I 
find that a truly exciting development.
  As we are winding down, I see Congressman Massa. I appreciated your 
earlier eloquence and focusing in on what difference it made to your 
hometown. Do you have any concluding thoughts?
  Mr. MASSA. Well, Congressman and colleagues, thank you very much. 
After I concluded my remarks, I noticed that I had received a text 
message from my 18-year-old daughter. My 18-year-old daughter, like 
many of her age, represents an entirely different way of looking at the 
future, one, frankly, framed by optimism and not constrained by the 
ideology of ``no.'' And she text me a message and said, ``You go, 
dad.''
  Many tell me that I get impassioned about these issues on the floor 
of the House, and there is some truth in that. But I ask my colleagues 
and I ask those people who sent me here to Washington and I ask us all, 
how can you not be? When you are confronted with the tremendous 
challenges that we face--and I hope I am mistaken, but I know I am not, 
because I do believe that global climate change is real and that there 
is an immediate imperative--but I combine that umbrella under which we 
conduct this discussion with the very hard-core business reality that 
we are presented with a tremendous economic and business opportunity to 
begin a process. And I am honored to be part of that process as we 
speak power to truth and debunk the incredible false statements that 
sometimes rise on the floor of this House to scare people away from 
taking the bold steps that we were sent here to take.
  So I look forward to being back with you and my colleagues, the 
scientists, Representatives like my fellow New Yorker, Paul Tonko, who 
already has an incredible legacy of leadership in New York, to my good 
friend, Congressman Hall, who, frankly, has led this not just from the 
floor of a stage, but from an absolute understanding of the imperative 
of science, and to those few words that I can add to this great debate 
as we move forward to undertake this challenge. I thank you for the 
opportunity to join you tonight.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, you go, indeed, Mr. Massa.
  Congressman Lujan.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Blumenauer, and to my colleagues here, we are talking 
about jobs. And I am reminded of a group of ranchers and farmers on the 
eastern side of my district in a mainly rural part that came together 
and they invested and they worked together to invest in the building of 
wind power, wind generation, wind turbines. And as a community, they 
came together with the Mesalands Community College in a small town by 
the name of Tucumcari, New Mexico, to build the National Wind Turbine 
Research Center out in the rural part of our State, training young 
people, creating jobs, investing in their community.
  And you have to think back to the lack of investment that we saw over 
the last 8 years. And that is what we are talking about, investing in 
America, investing in Americans, investing in education, and investing 
in a new way of generating energy.
  It is great to be part of a Congress that is moving forward with this 
new direction and a Congress that is working boldly, making sure that 
we are listening to the American people, working with the President, 
making sure that we are truly being responsible toward those that have 
entrusted us to do the good work that we are doing here today.
  Mr. Blumenauer, I can't tell you thanks enough for putting this hour 
together so we can talk to our friends, our family, the American people 
about the truth of the matter in this important debate, that we are 
going to need them to move forward, to work closely

[[Page 10202]]

with us as we work with them to make this happen and to transform the 
way that we generate power, look at power, and save power in our great 
Nation. Thank you very much.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Congressman Lujan.
  Congressman Hall, thank you so much, Congressman Himes, Congressman 
Tonko. We deeply appreciate your taking time out. It is only 7:36 back 
home in Oregon, but for you gentlemen, it is the end of a long day--or 
you are probably going back to your offices. And being willing to be 
part of this discussion tonight and the work that you are doing in the 
committees and providing the leadership, for me it is inspirational, 
and I deeply appreciate it.
  I appreciate your focusing in on the economic benefits, even putting 
aside the problems that we are facing as a result of global warming, 
but the opportunities to help families reduce their utility bills, to 
live more comfortably, to create not just thousands of jobs or tens of 
thousands of jobs, we are talking literally about millions of jobs. And 
already, as you pointed out this evening, we are seeing the glimmer of 
what can happen as a result of the economic recovery package.
  We are seeing that there are all sorts of advantages from simply 
moving forward apart from that, in terms of the cost savings, given the 
fact that energy costs are going to be going back up in the foreseeable 
future without question. And last, but not least, the cost of inaction 
dwarfs the cost of action. The downside risk is truly chilling. We are 
seeing that mount. We have seen study after study that shows that the 
American economy risks losing trillions of dollars of productivity. And 
the relatively small amount that we would be investing to forestall 
disaster seems like a bargain.
  I appreciate your willingness to join with us this evening. I hope 
that we will be able to continue this discussion, not just in our 
committees, but here on the floor, to be able to put the bigger picture 
together. And I look forward to continuing that conservation with you.
  Mr. Speaker, we thank you for the opportunity to share this with the 
American people tonight and yield back our time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak tonight, on 
the eve of Earth Day with respect to the most critical environmental 
crisis that this nation has ever faced: climate change. As daunting as 
this challenge is, I am proud that this Congress has done more in the 
past two months to combat climate change than the previous 
Administration accomplished in eight years.
  With passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we 
invested over $70 billion in clean, renewable energy. This important 
legislation will save or create over three million jobs. In the area of 
clean, renewable energy we will put people to work weatherizing homes 
of low income Americans. The previous Administration proposed 
eliminating all funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program. This 
stimulus legislation will invest $5 billion dollars over two years, 
which will weatherize at least two million homes. A wide range of 
studies suggests that weatherization is the most efficient way to save 
money while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. With the stimulus 
legislation, we are off to a great start.
  The stimulus also invested $8.4 billion in transit and $8 billion in 
high speed rail. Communities around the nation, including my 11th 
District of Virginia, are suffering from congestion that threatens to 
constrain economic growth in some of the most productive communities in 
the Nation. These transit investments will give commuters choices, 
reduce congestion, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They will spur 
economic development while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
  The stimulus invests $2 billion in advanced battery research. This 
field is essential to develop the next generation of plug in hybrids 
and to store solar energy. With solar companies creating jobs 
throughout our region, we must make the investments in innovation that 
will continue to grow the green jobs sector. America invented the 
photovoltaic solar panel, yet Germany, China, and Japan now lead us in 
solar panel production. With these investments, in addition to loan 
guarantees, we will once again have the opportunity to lead the world 
in production of green energy. By investing in the development of a 
smart grid, we will ensure that we conserve energy at home while 
enabling the transmission of renewable energy.
  Although we are already seeing benefits of the stimulus, whether it 
is repaving potholed roads or creating green jobs, we know that we 
cannot rest while carbon emissions continue to rise in America, China, 
and India. We must lead by passing comprehensive greenhouse gas 
reduction legislation that reaches 80 percent reductions in emissions 
by 2050, with aggressive but achievable shorter term targets. Without 
this legislation we will not be able to bring China and India to the 
table to develop binding goals for those large carbon emitters.
  I look at greenhouse gas legislation as an opportunity. For a quarter 
of a century, we have accepted dependence on foreign oil. For a quarter 
of a century, we have accepted dramatic declines in mining jobs even as 
our communities are devastated by acid mine drainage and mountaintop 
removal. For a quarter of a century, we have lost market share in auto 
sales as we clung to production of gas guzzling dinosaurs.
  No more will we accept the constraints that accompany an 
unwillingness to innovate. We may look forward to greenhouse gas 
legislation that sends a strong market signal to invest once again in 
America: in efficient automobiles, in wind turbines, in solar panels, 
in weatherization, in transit. These investments will not only protect 
our climate, and thus our coastal communities and agricultural 
heartland, but also lay the groundwork for a new age of industrial 
expansion founded on technological innovation.
  The environment cannot sustain further increases in carbon emissions 
and neither can our economy. We must act now to pass greenhouse gas 
reduction legislation that protects our climate while unequivocally 
redirecting our economy toward a clean energy future.

                          ____________________