[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19771-19779]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             GLOBAL WARMING

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I understand that some of my colleagues 
here in the Senate and in the House as well do not believe global 
warming is real and they do not want to see our country and, in fact, 
other countries around the world take the necessary actions to deal 
with this issue. That is fine; everybody is entitled to their opinion. 
But it does seem to me to make a bit of sense that we listen to the 
leading scientists of this world, not only in our own country but 
throughout the world, and hear what they have to say about global 
warming and the need to respond.
  The National Academy of Sciences in our country, the United States, 
joined by academies of science in the United Kingdom, in Italy, in 
Mexico, Canada, France, Japan, Russia, Germany, China, India, Brazil, 
South Africa, have said ``climate change is happening even faster than 
previously estimated'' and the ``need for urgent action to address 
climate change is now indisputable.''
  They are not talking about whether climate change is real or not 
real. What they are saying and what scientists all over the world are 
saying is that climate change is happening even faster than previously 
reported. Eighteen scientific societies, including the American 
Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science said:

       Observations throughout the world make it clear that 
     climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research 
     demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human 
     activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are 
     based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary 
     assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of 
     the vast body of peer-reviewed science.

  That comes from the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical 
Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 
Further, it is not just scientists in our own country or throughout the 
world who are talking about climate change, who are talking about the 
need to respond vigorously to that crisis, but right within our own 
government, the U.S. Government, we have the Department of Defense 
saying:


[[Page 19772]]

       Climate change is an accelerant of instability.

  What that means is that when there is drought, when countries around 
the world are unable to grow the food they need, when there is flooding 
and people are driven off the land, and when people migrate from one 
area to another, this creates international instability, which is of 
concern to the Department of Defense.
  The CIA understands that ``climate change could have significant 
geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, 
environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile 
governments,'' as well as ``food and water scarcity.'' That is from our 
own CIA.
  But it is not just scientists around the world, not just government 
agencies in the United States; you have a business whose life and 
death, whose profit margin depends upon understanding this issue and 
that is the insurance industry. If the insurance industry ends up 
paying out a whole lot of money when there are disasters, they are 
going to lose money. They have to understand climate change and the 
disasters, the weather disturbances that occur from that. This is what 
they say, in a report from the National Association of Insurance 
Commissioners. They found there is ``broad consensus among insurers 
that climate change will have an effect on extreme weather events.'' 
These are guys whose profit margins depend upon that analysis.
  Many Americans and people around the world are concerned about the 
future impacts of global warming on our planet and what is going to 
happen 10 or 20 years down the line, and that is terribly important. We 
have to understand what climate change is going to do to our planet in 
years to come. But we do not have to just look at what may happen 20 or 
30 years from today; we should be looking at what is happening right 
now, in the year 2011. The World Health Organization reports annual 
weather-related disasters have tripled since the 1960s, causing more 
than 60,000 deaths per year. The National Climatic Data Center shows 
that 26,500 record-high temperatures were recorded in weather stations 
across the United States this summer. Texas set the record for the 
warmest summer of any State since instrument records began in 1895. 
Oklahoma set a record for its warmest summer, exceeding records set 
during the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. Drought in Texas has led to 
wildfires that destroyed more than 1,500 homes in Texas.
  A 2010 heat wave in Russia killed 56,000 people. The heat wave in 
Europe in 2003 killed 35,000 people. We can look at Pakistan, which in 
2010 had a record 129-degree temperature. All of that is consistent 
with what scientists have been warning us about for years.
  NASA's James Hansen said climate change ``loads the dice'' in favor 
of more extreme weather events. Hansen said the answer to whether 
greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to these extreme weather 
disturbances is ``yes . . . humans probably bear responsibility for the 
extreme event.
  There is much to be said. I think a number of colleagues are coming 
to the floor. But I want to yield the floor to a Senator who has been 
an absolute leader on this whole issue, fighting for the environment, 
and that is Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, the statement my colleague has made is 
truthful and important, but there is absolutely more to this story even 
than that. At another time I will discuss at greater length the oceans 
dimension to what is happening to our planet as a result of the carbon 
pollution we are emitting at literally unprecedented levels in human 
history. But for now let me say it is very severe, very dire, and to 
everyone who is listening and paying attention, the ocean is emitting 
warning signs that we disregard at our peril.
  In addition to the threat of environmental harm, connected to the 
problem of carbon pollution is a huge opportunity and that is the 
opportunity of clean energy. Clean energy will drive the decades to 
come. Clean energy jobs can and should be powering our economic 
recovery.
  We are in a race right now. We are in a race for dominance and for 
preeminence in the clean energy economy that is emerging. All around 
the world, other countries see it. They are competing in that race. 
They are putting everything they have into winning that race. But 
because we have a political system that is still listening to the 
dirty, polluting energy industry and using the politics of Washington 
to interfere, we are constantly having to fight to stay even. One of 
the things we are fighting right now to preserve is the section 1603 
Treasury grant program, which will expire at the end of this year if we 
do nothing. This program has been vital for our renewable energy 
industry. It has leveraged nearly $23 billion in private sector 
investment, supported 22,000 projects which collectively power more 
than 1 million homes. This is big. This is no longer some tiny little 
cottage industry. The National Renewable Energy Lab estimates the 1603 
program has supported up to 290,000 U.S. jobs.
  If we look more largely at the renewable energy sector, renewable 
energy is more labor intensive, creates more jobs than fossil fuel 
energy per dollar invested, creates more jobs than fossil fuel energy 
per megawatt generated, and the clean economy as a whole, including 
renewable energy and energy efficiency and environmental management, 
employs 2.7 million workers in this country. It is more than the fossil 
fuel industry, but the fossil fuel industry owns this town and they 
keep stepping on this larger, growing, clean energy industry.
  We are seeing it, unfortunately, out there in real life. Americans 
invented the first solar cell in 1995. America had 40 percent of the 
global manufacturing volume. We are now down to 7 percent of the global 
manufacturing volume of solar cells.
  China is investing $20 billion more in clean energy every year to 
accelerate ahead of us. European countries have feed-in tariffs so 
investors can know what their clean energy product will sell for and 
that is attracting capital and growth there, and we simply are not 
keeping up. We are now, in the United States of America, the home to 
only 1 of the top 10 wind turbine manufacturers. This is an unhealthy 
place to be and we need to get back into this fight. The mature 
industries that America leads have demonstrated the important role of 
government intervention at their early days. Our commercial aviation 
industry has been the envy of the world through its entire history. The 
United States of America subsidized airmail to help support this 
fledgling industry. They purchased planes for military purposes to help 
support it and supported it with aeronautics R&D.
  The same thing should be happening in clean energy, and we need to 
work very hard to make sure this 1603 Treasury grant does not die on 
the cutting room floor as we come to the end of this year. If it does, 
jobs will go with it. There will be an immediate response. Projects 
will be terminated, people will be laid off, divisions of companies and 
smaller companies will close, and it is an unnecessary, self-inflicted 
injury we should avoid.
  Let me bring it home. In Rhode Island this project has facilitated 
solar panel installation on three new bank branches. The TD Bank has 
opened in Barrington, East Providence, and Johnston, RI. Those projects 
created jobs, put people to work, and lowered the costs of their 
electrical energy. Step by step it gets us off foreign oil and these 
foreign entanglements to defend our supply.
  The city of East Providence, RI, is in the middle of planning a 3-
megawatt solar project on an old landfill, land that had gone out of 
use effectively but now will be generating power for that city. 
Construction has also begun on three wind turbines at the Fields Point 
wastewater treatment facility in Providence. The turbines will meet 
more than half of our big water utility's energy needs.
  A company called Hodges Badge--if your child has ever won an award in 
a

[[Page 19773]]

track meet, in a horse show, or in a school production, they probably 
got a ribbon for it, and that ribbon was probably made by Hodges Badge. 
It is a great Rhode Island company. It has 95 employees. They have gone 
completely clean energy, and they are doing that to protect those 95 
jobs. They are doing it to lower their energy costs, and they are doing 
it to do the right thing.
  I salute Senator Sanders for his eloquence on the real problem of 
climate change and the campaign of lies and propaganda that has 
interfered with our ability to deal with what is a real and emerging 
problem, and also to point out that the second step in this is that 
there are jobs and there is economic success behind the clean energy 
industry that will lead us out of the predicament we are creating for 
ourselves because people here are in the thrall of the polluting 
industries.
  I thank Senator Sanders very much.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I want to reiterate the very important 
point that Senator Whitehouse has made. This struggle is not only to 
transform our energy system, to move away from fossil fuel, and to end 
the absurdity of importing over $300 billion a year in oil from Saudi 
Arabia and other foreign countries and move toward energy independence, 
this effort is to cut greenhouse gas emissions so that we save the 
planet. This effort also has to do with creating jobs in the midst of 
the worst recession since the Great Depression.
  I hope that every Member of the Senate is on the side of the American 
workers in helping us to grow sustainable energy companies so we create 
the jobs we need in this country rather than let China and other 
countries dominate those industries.
  Mr. President, I am very proud to give the floor over to the 
chairperson of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, certainly 
one of the great environmental leaders here in the Senate, Senator 
Barbara Boxer of California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the time remaining in Senator 
Sanders' block?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 36\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is the Senator satisfied if I take about 7 minutes?
  Mr. SANDERS. That would be fine.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to say how proud I am of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee. To be chairman of the committee that has such 
incredible Senators, such as those you have heard from--Senator 
Sanders, Senator Whitehouse; we also have Senator Cardin, Senator 
Carper, Senator Baucus, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Merkley, and 
Senator Lautenberg. I hope I am not leaving anyone out. These are the 
environmental voices, the commonsense voices for jobs, for clean 
technology, for a bright future for our Nation, so to be the chairman 
of that committee is an honor beyond my every expectation.
  It is not to say we don't work with Republicans; we do on public 
works matters. We work very well with Senator Inhofe and his team of 
Republicans on public works, but when it comes to the environment, 
there is nobody home over there. As a matter of fact, they do harm.
  Today I am going to talk about the need to create jobs through this 
sector, but I also want to say, while my colleagues are here, an 
interesting development that has happened on the payroll tax cut bill 
that the House is about to pass. We have a kind of inside-the-Beltway 
term when extraneous provisions are added to a bill that will bring 
down the bill, and we call that a poison pill amendment. I have never 
said to you when I coined that phrase ``poison pill'' amendment that it 
is literal. In this case they have attached to the payroll tax cut--
which is on the one hand giving a tax cut to the middle class--a 
literal poison pill by rolling back a Clean Air Act provision that will 
require a very small percent of the boilers in this country to cut back 
on the filthiest of all pollution, including mercury, arsenic, and 
lead. I will say that again: mercury, arsenic, and lead.
  If I were to stop anyone in the street, they don't need a degree in 
science to know if those are good things or bad things for you. They 
didn't even have to see the movie ``Arsenic and Old Lace'' to know that 
arsenic is bad. Lead damages the brains of our kids. Mercury has 
horrible impacts, particularly on children. So they have attached a 
poison pill, literally, because it will kill 8,100 more people than 
otherwise would have been killed from pollution. They have attached 
that to the payroll tax cut. How is that for a Christmas gift? Hi, I am 
your Senator, here is a tax cut for you of about $1,000, but, sorry, 
you might die from breathing in too much poison in the form of mercury, 
lead, and arsenic.
  That is what is going on here. Honestly, we have asked for a lot from 
Santa in our day, but we never asked for lead, arsenic, and mercury.
  The reason Senator Sanders took to the floor today--and the reason I 
am proud to be here--is because we all say here in this Chamber that we 
care about jobs. We all say here in this Chamber that we want to be 
energy independent. We should all add that we want less pollution. Our 
colleagues on the other side never mention it. We should add that we 
want less carbon pollution, which is leading us to extreme weather 
conditions, climate change, but they don't say that. We say that.
  How do you do it? Well, there are many ways. One is to enforce the 
clean air laws we have, by the way, that will help get carbon out of 
the air. But a very easy way as we extend this payroll tax cut, which 
we all want for our middle class, is to say we should extend those 
clean energy tax breaks that allow us to move toward innovation. You 
hear a lot of talk from the other side about how solar energy is in 
decline and they talk about Solyndra and the problems there. Let me 
tell you something, that mindset would mean we never would have made it 
to the Moon because we know what happened to Apollo 1. It was not good. 
We didn't walk away from going to the Moon. We expected there would be 
problems with the program that we put together. That is why we had $2 
billion to offset any companies that might not make it. Do we stop 
cancer research because a lot of the scientists' leads don't pan out? 
We don't walk away from cancer research. But our friends on the other 
side, the minute they can seize on something to walk away from clean 
energy, they do. I have come to the conclusion that there is only one 
reason for it, and that reason is they represent--and this is my 
opinion--big oil, big polluters, the people who, over the years, have 
tried to stop us from moving away from those fossil fuels.
  All you have to do is read the history books to see how big oil 
teamed up with the auto industry to take out all the railroad tracks 
that they could to stop the competition. All you have to see is the 
movie ``Who Killed the Electric Car.'' You cannot even find those GM 
cars. They took them and literally flattened them and they bought time 
for the gas-guzzling cars until finally, with President Obama's 
leadership, we were able to influence the companies in Detroit to make 
them understand the very simple fact that if we move to cleaner burning 
fuels, if we move to fuel economy, they are going to make a lot more 
money because that is the future.
  What we face here instead of seeing an extension of the clean energy 
provisions to help us move toward solar, to help us move away from 
fossil fuels, to help us get a better balance of payments, to move away 
from the Middle East dictators, we see nothing. What do we see? We see 
another poison pill in another one of their bills over there to repeal 
the standards for light bulbs. What are these people thinking? They 
need a light bulb to go off in their own head. We have to move toward 
energy efficiency. It is a win-win-win.
  I am going to talk about California in my remaining time. We have 
seen great progress there. We have added 79,000 jobs in the clean 
energy sector in the past 7 years, and that clean energy sector remains 
one of the most promising industries in our State, and people are 
happy. We are going to put a million solar rooftops on in California. I 
know Senator Sanders has been calling for this for years. California is

[[Page 19774]]

doing it with Governor Brown leading the way with the legislature. Do 
you know what that means? It means that people are going to work in 
California. You cannot be in China unless you have an extremely long 
arm and put a solar rooftop on in Los Angeles or in Riverside County or 
San Francisco or San Diego. So we need to reauthorize 1603, the 
Treasury grant program, which allows developers to receive a grant in 
lieu of a credit, in lieu of a writeoff. That means they will get the 
funding and they can move forward with their front. It is leveraged by 
$22 billion in private sector investment. If we extend the program, we 
will be creating 37,000 jobs.
  I have to ask rhetorically: What is wrong with the Republican Party 
that they don't understand that when you extend these kinds of tax 
credits, you move away from the dictators who control the oil supply 
and who would turn on us in a minute, and instead you create jobs here 
at home, the air is less polluted, the kids have less asthma? There are 
very few things that we could come to the floor and say are such a win-
win-win.
  There is 48-C in the manufacturing tax credit, which provides a 
credit for facilities that make clean energy equipment components. We 
know there is a demand for these programs.
  I want to say to my colleagues on the other side who are on the EPW 
Committee, I hope they will join me at 2:30 p.m. We are going to have a 
press conference to talk about the need for protecting the air that we 
breathe and for the need to see a payroll tax cut that doesn't come 
over here loaded down with things that are going to lead to riders that 
are unrelated, that are going to lead to the death of our people.
  Simple message: No poison pills that poison the people, please. I 
hope they will join me there. But I want them to know, and I want to 
say, Senator Whitehouse organized a letter that was critical to get all 
of us on this letter. I ask Senator Whitehouse, through the Chair, how 
many signatures did you get?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. We had over 30. The number is still climbing 
retroactively--but more than 30 Democratic Senators.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is a very large number of Senators to have put their 
names on a letter. These letters are hard. People are busy. They do not 
have time. You get 30 names on a letter, and we say: Extend these tax 
cuts for jobs, for the environment, for all the good things. I ask 
unanimous consent to have the letter Senator Whitehouse organized 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2011.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Max Baucus,
     Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Republican Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington. DC.
     Hon. Orrin Hatch,
     Ranking, Senate Finance Committee,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid, Republican Leader McConnell, 
     Chairman Baucus, and Ranking Member Hatch: We are writing to 
     urge your support for the extension of key expiring clean 
     energy and efficiency tax provisions that create jobs and 
     protect our environment. Allowing these incentives to expire 
     would harm the U.S. economy, eliminate tens of thousands of 
     jobs, and sideline billions of dollars of private sector 
     capital investments. In particular, the renewable energy 
     industry would be negatively impacted by an expiration of 
     provisions.
       One of the most critical tax provisions set to expire this 
     year is the 1603 Treasury Grant Program (TGP), which has 
     provided a way to finance renewable energy projects despite 
     the breakdown of tax equity markets and has proven a 
     particularly effective job creation tool. Over the last two 
     and a half years, the TGP has leveraged nearly $23 billion in 
     private sector investment for 22,000 projects in every state 
     and across a dozen clean energy industries, including solar, 
     wind, biomass, fuel cell, combined heat-and-power, and 
     hydropower projects. To date, the program has spurred the 
     construction of sufficient new generation capacity to power 
     more than one million American homes and has supported 
     roughly 290,000 U.S. jobs. Allowing the TGP to expire would 
     shrink financing available for renewable energy projects by 
     52 percent, according to a July 2011 survey by the U.S. 
     Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance. This would kill 
     tens of thousands of jobs across all clean energy industries 
     and states.
       We have seen what happens when these credits expire. The 
     biodiesel production tax credit lapsed in 2010, and fuel 
     production dropped dramatically, shuttering dozens of plants 
     and putting thousands of people across the country out of 
     work. Given our nation's urgent need for more transportation 
     fuels from domestic sources that are both secure and 
     environmentally sound, we cannot let that happen again. With 
     the biodiesel tax credit in place again for 2011, domestic 
     production has more than doubled, supporting more than 31,000 
     jobs and generating at least $3 billion in GDP and $628 
     million in federal, state, and local tax revenues.
       We also support additional funding for the Advanced Energy 
     Manufacturing Tax Credit (48C), which has leveraged timely 
     private investments in new, expanded, or re-equipped advanced 
     energy manufacturing projects throughout the country. The 
     program has been able to leverage $5.4 billion in private 
     investment, boosting growth and creating new U.S. 
     manufacturing jobs producing components and equipment for the 
     burgeoning global renewable energy industry. Applications to 
     the program have far exceeded the program's original 
     allocation, indicating a tremendous potential for continued 
     investment and job creation in the manufacturing sector. 
     Without funding for programs like this, we effectively 
     forfeit clean energy manufacturing to countries like China.
       The Production Tax Credit (PTC) has facilitated tens of 
     billions of dollars in new clean energy generating capacity, 
     particularly in the wind industry, which has created 
     thousands of new manufacturing and construction jobs in many 
     of the hardest hit parts of our country. Last year, new wind 
     power represented over one-third of all new U.S. electricity 
     generation capacity. This is an industry in which the United 
     States currently has a trade surplus with China, Brazil. and 
     other fast-growing developing economies. We need a timely 
     extension of the PTC to keep these jobs in the U.S. and 
     provide certainty to investors.
       These expiring tax provisions have demonstrated their 
     effectiveness in catalyzing private investment and job 
     growth, spurring U.S. technological innovation, and 
     diversifying our nation's energy mix. In light of the 
     critical role these incentives and others have played in 
     fostering U.S. economic growth, now is not the time to let 
     them lapse, even temporarily. We believe it is important 
     these critical tax provisions be part of any year-end tax 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
       John F. Kerry, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara Boxer, Jeff 
     Bingaman, Maria Cantwell, Benjamin L. Cardin, Jeanne Shaheen, 
     Robert Menendez, Bernard Sanders, Richard Blumenthal, Dianne 
     Feinstein.
       Mark Udall, Sherrod Brown, Ron Wyden, Daniel K. Akaka, 
     Debbie Stabenow, Tim Johnson, Tom Udall, Jeff Merkley, 
     Michael F. Bennet, Mark Begich, Amy Klobuchar.
       Jack Reed, Patrick J. Leahy, Al Franken, Joseph I. 
     Lieberman, Tom Harkin, Christopher A. Coons, Frank R. 
     Lautenberg, Barbara A. Mikulski, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Carl 
     Levin, Bill Nelson, Daniel K. Inouye.

  Mrs. BOXER. I would yield back to our leader on this important block 
of time. I would yield my time back to Senator Sanders. We are 
determined to get this done right for the American people.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank Senator Boxer very much, not only for her words 
but for her leadership on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  I wish to reiterate a very important point Senator Boxer made. She 
reminds us of great moments in the history of this country. This 
country, with great difficulty but persistence, built a railroad ahead 
of the rest of the world that went from the east coast to the west 
coast. It was not easy. This country led the world in putting a man on 
the Moon. It was not easy, at great expense, difficulties, but we did 
it. Does anybody not think this country can lead the world in 
transforming our energy system away from polluting fossil fuels to 
energy efficiency, to sustainable energies such as wind, solar, 
geothermal, biomass, other technologies? Can we not lead the world in 
making our own country more energy efficient, making our air cleaner 
but also in creating large numbers of jobs as we weatherize our 
buildings, as we build the solar panels we need to build the wind 
turbines, as we put more engineers and scientists to work to help us in 
this energy transformation.
  I wish to pick up on a point Senator Whitehouse made a moment ago,

[[Page 19775]]

which is that while we talk about energy transformation, while we all 
understand that over a period of years, the oil industry, for example, 
has received billions and billions of dollars of permanent tax breaks, 
what we are fighting for right now is to see that the 1603 renewable 
energy grant program is renewed. As Senator Whitehouse indicated, 1603 
allows renewable energy developers to get a grant instead of a tax 
credit. Since 2009, when this program was enacted, it has leveraged 
nearly $23 billion in private investment supporting 22,000 projects in 
all 50 States and supported approximately 290,000 jobs, according to 
the National Renewable Energy Lab. Since 1603 was enacted, solar jobs 
doubled to more than 100,000 jobs.
  We have to make sure that before Congress adjourns for the Christmas 
holidays, we renew 1603. It is enormously important for the renewable 
energy industry, enormously important for jobs in our country.
  With that, I would yield the floor to Senator Whitehouse.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank Senator Sanders. Senator Cardin has arrived 
so I will hand off to him in a moment. But to the Senator's point about 
the imbalance between support for the fossil fuel energy industry and 
the renewable energy industry; the first being one that hurts our 
national security, pollutes our air and costs a fortune and is phasing 
out and the second being one that is growing, that is clean, and that 
is the way of the future.
  According to the Environmental Law Institute, the U.S. invested 
almost six times more in subsidies for fossil fuel from 2002 to 2008 
than we did in renewable energy. So by a factor of six times, we have 
our thumb on the scales supporting the old dirty industry against the 
new, rather than supporting the new the way our international 
competitors are doing.
  I ask unanimous consent that a response from Secretary Chu to a 
letter Senator Sanders and I and other Senators wrote to him about the 
status of and success of our clean energy investments be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      The Secretary of Energy,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 2011.
     Hon. Bernard Sanders, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, Hon. Debbie 
       Stabenow, Hon. Sherrod Brown, Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman, 
       Hon. Christopher Coons, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, Hon. 
       Richard Blumenthal, Hon. Jon Tester, Hon. Patty Murray, 
       Hon. Mark Udall, Hon. Patrick Leahy, Hon. Tom Udall, Hon. 
       John Kerry, Hon. Carl Levin, Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
       Hon. Tim Johnson, Hon. Michael F. Bennet, Hon. Jack Reed, 
       Hon. Daniel Akaka, Hon. Jeff Merkley, Hon. Kirsten E. 
       Gillibrand,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: Thank you for your October 5, 2011 letter 
     requesting an update on United States investment in clean 
     energy technology and job creation. I strongly agree that the 
     United States faces a critical decision point in our Nation's 
     energy future if we hope to compete in and win the global 
     clean energy economy. As President Obama has said, ``The 
     country that leads the clean energy economy will lead the 
     21st century global economy.''
       The annual global clean energy market is estimated to be 
     worth more than $211 billion, up 32 percent from 2009. The 
     global market for solar photovoltaic systems alone represents 
     an $80 billion market this year. It is estimated that the 
     global renewable energy market will grow to $460 billion by 
     2030, with a cumulative investment from 2010 to 2030 of 
     approximately $7 trillion in new capital. This increased 
     market is being driven by increased global demand and 
     technological advances that are rapidly making renewable 
     energy cost competitive with fossil energy.
       The economic stakes are high. However, we are currently at 
     risk of falling behind our global competitors who are seizing 
     the opportunity by investing more heavily and establishing 
     market policies that give them a strategic advantage. The 
     United States currently ranks first in only one of the top 
     ten clean energy benchmarks. Thanks to our world-class 
     universities and national labs, we still hold an edge in 
     technology innovation, but we are falling further and further 
     behind in key areas such as manufacturing competitiveness and 
     exports. Countries like China are moving forward with large 
     investments.
       There are some who say that we cannot compete with China. I 
     respectfully disagree. However, time is of the essence. I 
     would like to work with you to establish a comprehensive 
     energy policy that targets all aspects of the energy value 
     chain--innovation, manufacturing, deployment, financing, and 
     markets--to provide the certainty American businesses and 
     entrepreneurs need to compete with their global counterparts. 
     Without a comprehensive, long-term energy policy framework 
     focused on this full energy value chain, American business 
     will continue to move capital and jobs overseas to take 
     advantage of more business friendly policies.
       The questions you have posed in your letter are very 
     important to understand America's current position in the 
     clean energy economy, including where we have been successful 
     and where we need to improve. While these questions are very 
     complex, I have attempted to succinctly answer each of them 
     as directly as possible. I also have included additional 
     background information related to each question you raise to 
     provide a fuller understanding of our domestic clean energy 
     landscape.
       I know that you care deeply about these issues and that you 
     understand the opportunity presented by the growing demand 
     for clean energy technologies. There is a growing debate in 
     Congress on issues relating to the clean energy innovation 
     chain and the steps we can take to position America to win 
     the clean energy technology race. I want to make sure you 
     know that I am personally available, along with my senior 
     staff and the full resources of the Department to assist you 
     in gathering information and in providing technical 
     assistance on these issues. I am fortunate to have a 
     thoughtful team of professionals who wrestle with these 
     issues every day, and I would be happy to make them available 
     to you.
       Thank you for the opportunity to respond and for your 
     commitment to America's energy future. I look forward to 
     working with you and your colleagues to help recapture our 
     leadership role in clean energy by establishing smart 
     policies to win the clean energy technology race.
           Sincerely,
     Steven Chu.
                                  ____


                         Questions and Answers

       1. How have the investments that the United States has made 
     over the last several years contributed to the growth in 
     energy efficiency deployment and renewable energy generation, 
     and what projections can you share for the near future?
       Jobs: The clean energy sector directly employs nearly 1.6 
     million people in the U.S. The Recovery Act alone has already 
     saved or created over 225,000 clean energy jobs and is 
     estimated to add an additional 800,000 jobs by the end of 
     2012. As of August 2011, the U.S. had created over 100,000 
     solar-focused jobs and at least 75,000 jobs related to wind 
     installation in 2010.
       Renewable Energy: Through investments in clean energy, the 
     United States is on track to double U.S. renewable energy 
     generation in four years (from 71 TWh in 2008 to 178 TWh in 
     2012). For example, the highly leveraged 1603 grant in lieu 
     of tax credit program has led to the deployment of more than 
     5,000 renewable energy projects across the country. These 
     projects have enough capacity to power more than one million 
     homes.
       Energy Efficiency: Over the last two years, the Department 
     of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program has helped more 
     than 750,000 low-income households save on average more than 
     $430 per year on their energy bills. The program has 
     supported over 14,000 jobs across the country and thousands 
     of additional jobs throughout the supply chain. Residential 
     efficiency standards are currently saving consumers about $25 
     billion per year in energy costs--a savings of approximately 
     $250/year per household. A recent analysis estimates that 
     appliance standards have created an industry supporting 
     340,000 jobs, with expected growth to 380,000 jobs by 2030.
       Transportation: Three years ago, American businesses 
     accounted for only two percent of the market for advanced 
     batteries. We are now on track to establish annual production 
     capacity for 500,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, 
     helping support a projected total of 1 million electric 
     vehicles on the road by 2015. New fuel economy standards will 
     save American families an average of more than $8,000 at-the-
     pump for cars in 2025 compared to those in 2010. These 
     improvements will reduce America's dependence on oil by an 
     estimated 12 billion barrels, and, by 2025, reduce oil 
     consumption by 2.2 million barrels per day--enough to offset 
     almost a quarter of the current level of our foreign oil 
     imports.
       Near-Future Projections: All the trends suggest that the 
     cost of electricity from solar and onshore wind is either 
     already or will soon be cost competitive without subsidies 
     with electricity from natural gas in many parts of the 
     country. This will result in sharp increases in renewable 
     energy deployment. Between 2010-2030, estimates suggest a 7.9 
     million cumulative net job-years of direct and indirect 
     employment to be created as a result of this electricity 
     supply forecast. The renewable energy and energy efficiency 
     sectors are estimated to see a 6.4 million net job-years 
     increase (an 80 percent share of total increase) during this 
     period, with the rest of the increase mostly coming from 
     natural gas.
       2. In particular, how is clean technology playing a role in 
     rebuilding our manufacturing base, and creating jobs in 
     construction and manufacturing supply chains?

[[Page 19776]]

       Roughly 26 percent of all clean energy jobs lie in 
     manufacturing. On average, clean energy manufacturing exports 
     represent roughly twice the value of traditional exports on a 
     per job basis ($20,000 versus $10,000). Between 2003 and 
     2010, technology manufacturing produced explosive annual job 
     growth rates (e.g. 18.4 percent for solar thermal, 14.7 
     percent for wind, 10.7 percent for solar photovoltaics, 
     etc.).
       3. How do our policies and investments in clean technology 
     compare to foreign competitors, how would proposed reductions 
     in clean energy research and development funding impact 
     American competitiveness, and do American manufacturers have 
     a level playing field?
       The table gives a global score card for clean energy 
     investments. The U.S. has fallen behind China and other 
     nations in total clean energy investments. Venture capital 
     investments are largely focused on technology innovation, and 
     the U.S. is the overwhelming leader. However, technology 
     innovation is a lagging indicator of prior investments in 
     science and engineering R&D, the majority of which is 
     government sponsored. In 2008, the U.S. invested only 0.03 
     percent of its GDP on public energy R&D, which ranks behind 
     China, Japan, and Canada and is tied with S. Korea. Finally, 
     U.S. public energy R&D investments have declined by a factor 
     of four since the late 1970s. While the U.S. is currently the 
     leader in technology innovation, increases in Chinese 
     investments in energy R&D suggests that U.S. leadership in 
     the future is not guaranteed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number for Top
          Categories (Year)                   Top Rank                Rank         US Ranking      US Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Clean Energy investments        China..................  $54.48                       3  $34B
 (2010).
Clean Energy Investments as Fraction  Germany................  1.40%                        9  0.23%
 of National GDP (2010).
Five Year Growth Rates in Clean       Turkey.................  190%                        11  61%
 Energy (2010).
Venture Capital Financing (2010)....  USA....................  $6B                          1  $6B
Public R&D Investment as a fraction   China..................  0.11%                        5  0.03%
 of GDP (2008).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       In relation to China alone, the U.S. leads China in only 1 
     of the 6 key clean energy investment indicators. In 
     particular, China is outpacing the U.S. by over 2 to 1 in 
     clean energy asset financing, which typically produces the 
     largest number of jobs.
       Chinese trade practices are also having a significant 
     impact on the ability of U.S. clean energy manufacturers to 
     compete in the global marketplace.
       4. How do current incentives for renewable energy compare 
     to support for other energy technologies when those 
     technologies were first emerging?
       The success of fuels and technologies in the energy market 
     depend on a wide range of factors, one being subsidies. The 
     Environmental Law Institute found that between 2002 and 2009, 
     fossil fuels received more than double the amount of 
     subsidies (approximately $70 billion) than renewable fuels 
     ($29 billion) over the same period. Moreover, their report 
     suggests the most significant portion of the fossil fuel 
     subsidies are in the form of Foreign Tax Credits, indirectly 
     supporting the overseas production of oil.
       Over the longer term, another report suggests that the 
     historical average of annual energy subsidies is roughly 
     $4.86 billion for oil and gas (1918-2009), $3.5 billion for 
     nuclear (1947-1999), $1.08 billion for biofuels (1980-2009) 
     and $0.37 billion for renewables (1994-2009). Accordingly, 
     for the first 15 years since the birth of each technology, 
     non-hydro renewables for electricity generation seem to have 
     received lower subsidies in equivalent dollars than the other 
     technologies.
       In energy R&D alone, federal spending since 1978 on fossil 
     fuel and nuclear energy sources has significantly outpaced 
     spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy: nuclear 
     energy (37 percent); fossil energy (26 percent); renewable 
     energy (16 percent); energy efficiency (14 percent).
       5. What is the potential for continued growth in energy 
     efficiency deployment and renewable energy supply, and job 
     creation in these sectors, over the next 10 years and beyond?
       The current world market for renewable energy is projected 
     to grow from approximately $195 billion in 2010 to 
     approximately $395 billion in 2020 and $460 billion by 2030. 
     The cumulative investment from 2010 to 2030 will be 
     approximately $7 trillion in new capital. The potential 
     growth for energy efficiency is also significant. McKinsey 
     and Company estimates that the U.S. economy has the potential 
     to reduce annual non-transportation energy consumption by 
     roughly 23 percent by 2020, eliminating more than $1.2 
     trillion in energy waste. This would also result in the 
     abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse-gas emissions 
     annually--the equivalent of taking the entire U.S. fleet of 
     passenger vehicles and light trucks off the roads for one 
     year. The Center for American Progress estimates that 
     retrofitting just 40 percent of the residential and 
     commercial building stock in the United States would:
       --Create 625,000 sustained full-time jobs over a decade;
       --Spark $500 billion in new investments to upgrade 50 
     million homes and office building;
       --Generate as much as $64 billion a year in cost savings 
     for U.S. ratepayers, freeing consumers to spend their money 
     in more productive ways.
                                  ____


                               Fact Sheet

       The U.S. imports roughly 50 percent of the oil we use, much 
     of it from countries that are not always friendly to the 
     U.S., and we pay an estimated $1 billion per day. Our economy 
     and our people are vulnerable to fluctuations and steady rise 
     in global oil prices, and we do not have much control over 
     them. We are more dependent on foreign oil today than we were 
     at the time of the first ``energy crisis'' nearly 40 years 
     ago.
       We urgently need to develop alternatives for transportation 
     energy that are based on domestic, clean and sustainable 
     resources. The U.S. invented the lithium ion battery that is 
     used in plug-in hybrid cars, and in 2009 it had only about 2 
     percent of the world's manufacturing volume. We need to 
     innovate to regain our lead; otherwise we will become 
     importers of batteries instead of oil.
       Between 2003 and 2010, the technology-focused ``cleantech'' 
     sector produced explosive job gains in the U.S. and the clean 
     economy has outperformed the overall nation's economy. 
     Roughly 26 percent of all clean energy jobs lie in 
     manufacturing, compared to just 9 percent in the broader 
     economy. On average, clean energy manufacturing exports 
     represent roughly twice the value of traditional exports, on 
     a per job basis ($20,000 versus $10,000). The renewable 
     energy sector is estimated to see a 5.7 million net job-years 
     increase (a 72 percent increase) between 2010-2030, with the 
     rest of the increase mostly coming from natural gas (1.6 
     million job-years). This is a fast-growing sector to create 
     new jobs in the U.S.
       The cost of renewable energy has fallen dramatically (solar 
     over 70 percent in the last three years) and these costs will 
     continue to decline. Renewable energy costs are competitive 
     with conventional energy costs in many parts of the world and 
     will be in the U.S. within several years. Therefore, the 
     current world market for renewable energy grew 30 percent 
     between 2009 and 2010, and is projected to grow from 
     approximately $200 billion in 2010, to approximately $400 
     billion in 2020 and $460 billion by 2030. The cumulative 
     investment from 2010 to 2030 will be approximately $7 
     trillion in new capital. Other nations are positioning 
     themselves to avail of this massive opportunity because this 
     will create new domestic jobs.
       The U.S. invented the modern solar cell, and had more than 
     40 percent of the global manufacturing volume in 1995. Today, 
     it has about 7 percent of the manufacturing volume. This is a 
     rapidly growing industry, and we are falling behind.
       The global competition for clean energy jobs is fierce. 
     China ranks first among all nations in overall investment, 
     clean energy asset financing, and the use of public markets 
     to invest in clean energy. The United States currently ranks 
     first in only one of the top 10 clean energy benchmarks--3rd 
     in overall investments, and 9th when it comes to investment 
     as a percentage of GDP. Trends in 5-year investment growth 
     rates in clean energy show that U.S. does not appear among 
     the top 10 countries.
       America faces a choice about what to do with the 
     opportunity presented by the global clean energy race. We can 
     compete in the global marketplace--creating American jobs and 
     selling American products--or we can buy the technologies of 
     tomorrow from abroad. I believe all Americans would agree 
     that the U.S. should compete to win the future.
       How can we win the future? We must leverage our Nation's 
     strengths and core competencies to simultaneously address the 
     five components of our energy value chain--innovation, 
     manufacturing, deployment, finance and markets.
       1. We have the world's best and most innovative 
     universities, national labs and small businesses in clean 
     technologies. We must double down with smart and sustained 
     investments in R&D to unleash our unique capacity to innovate 
     clean energy technologies.
       2. We must provide long-term predictable support for 
     American entrepreneurs and businesses so that they can 
     catalyze private sector investments to translate these 
     innovations into manufacturing and jobs. This will enable 
     these technologies to become globally competitive, affordable 
     worldwide, and to be sold without subsidies.
       3. American entrepreneurs and businesses need access to 
     low-cost, long-term, and large-scale capital if they are to 
     be globally competitive. We have the world's largest capital 
     markets. We must find ways to leverage this strength by 
     unlocking this capital to finance clean energy investments 
     for both manufacturing and deployment.

[[Page 19777]]


       4. Finally, innovation, manufacturing and deployment occur 
     only if there is a demand for these technologies here in the 
     U.S. Just like the new fuel efficiency standards are creating 
     a market for domestic innovations in transportation, policies 
     such as the Clean Energy Standard can create demand for clean 
     electricity from renewables, nuclear and clean fossil fuels 
     produced in the United States, and provide certainty for 
     American entrepreneurs.
       The stakes are too high to wave the white flag and 
     surrender. It is a fight we can and must win.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield to Senator Cardin.
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank my colleague for yielding. I wish to thank 
Senator Sanders, Senator Whitehouse, and Senator Boxer, who were on the 
floor on this issue.
  I just wish to underscore the point that was just made about having a 
level playing field, where we have tilted the scales in favor of fossil 
fuels over renewables. My colleagues have already talked about the 
direct difference in our subsidies. I would like to add an additional 
element; that is, when you look at the subsidies we give to the fossil 
fuel industries, they are permanent. They are in the Tax Code. They do 
not go through the annual exercise of an extender.
  What does that mean? That means the lack of predictability in 
sustainable energy means there is a higher cost for investment. It 
tilts the scale in favor of oil and gas, rather than on sustainable, 
renewable energy sources. I would just mention three. The Congressional 
Research Service did a report on this, just three of the provisions 
that benefit the oil industry: the excess of percentage over cost 
depletion, the expensing of exploration and development costs, and the 
amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures. Just those 
three provisions that are permanent in our Tax Code, between 2010 and 
2014, will cost the taxpayers over $10 billion.
  We are subsidizing the oil industry, and we should not be doing that. 
We should be encouraging a transformation to sustainable energy issues 
as my colleagues have pointed out for the purposes of national 
security. It is good for our environment and it is good for jobs. This 
is about jobs. That is why we cannot go home until we have extended the 
tax provisions, particularly 1603 but others of the energy-related, 
sustainable energy provisions.
  I wish to talk for one moment, if I might, about the production tax 
credit we need to extend because I want to talk about one specific 
project in Maryland, on a brownfields site that we are dealing with 
that relates to energy. Some might say: OK. That does not expire until 
2013. But here is the problem. You have to have it in production by 
that date. Our waste-to-energy projects--it is not going to be in 
production by that date. So if we do not extend it this month, the 
project will be at a standstill in Baltimore.
  There are 1,900 jobs at stake--1,900 jobs are at stake on just that 
one project which, by the way, helps our environment, helps our energy, 
and also helps our economy. That is why it is critically important that 
before we leave, we extend these sustainable energy tax credits, so we 
can get the investment.
  Quite frankly, I would like to see us make some of these permanent. 
We make them permanent, we get predictability. We get predictability, 
it is less cost, it encourages more activity in this area. That is what 
we should be about, creating jobs for our country. The wind energy 
credit alone would allow us to create another 54,000 jobs. So this is 
about job growth for America. It is about our energy security, and it 
is about a cleaner environment. It is about America's future.
  That is why we have taken the time to point out to the American 
people that Congress needs to make sure it is active on these areas 
before we adjourn for the year. We owe that to the people of this 
country.
  With that, I will yield to my friend from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wanted to thank the Senator from 
Maryland not only for his important remarks now but for, year after 
year, the strong work he is doing in trying to create jobs in America 
in sustainable energy.
  I would like to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island for his 
thoughts.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank Senator Sanders. I wish to go back to this 
question of the jobs and the economic value we get from clean energy. 
The Department of Energy reports that the clean energy sector alone 
directly employs nearly 1.6 million people in the United States. So 
nearly 1.6 million families are depending on the paychecks they get 
from the clean energy sector.
  Within that, it is growing. The United States has created over 
100,000 solar-focused jobs--100,000 solar-focused jobs--and at least 
75,000 jobs related to wind energy installation in 2010. In Rhode 
Island, we are seeing that coming on. The newspaper today, the 
Providence Journal, reported on a permit application for the cable that 
will connect an offshore wind facility that is going in off Block 
Island back to the grid onshore to bring the power from that 
installation back and into the New England energy grid.
  But when it gets going, think of the jobs that are going to be 
involved in that. Senator Reed and I worked very hard to shore up--get 
money to shore up the waterside, the side of the pier at Quonset so it 
would be capable of dealing with very heavy-duty installation barges 
and things such as that.
  So the Quonset Point facility is now ready for this construction. We 
have the trains and new highways that bring in the pieces of those big 
turbines. The turbines are so big you cannot build them in China, in 
Europe. We have to assemble them onshore and put them right on the 
barge. So the assembly of them will take place in Rhode Island, right 
at Quonset, and that will mean a lot of jobs.
  Then we have to barge them out and we have the barge operators and 
the barge captains and the tugs. Then we sink the base, and we have to 
have divers and builders and people who are experts in that kind of 
marine construction.
  Then we put them up. We have to operate them. We have to maintain 
them. What they do is they contribute clean energy to the grid. They 
are a constant supply because of the wind over the Atlantic being such 
a powerful resource, and it is kind of a win-win situation. So we see 
the need to get behind this in an immediate way in Rhode Island.
  It would be one of the great tragedies if we let the Chinese and the 
Belgians and the French and the Dutch and whoever else get ahead of us 
in this competition. We do not need to. It is wrong. We are taking 
ourselves out of a race we should be winning when we do that. I commend 
Senator Sanders for his effort to bring us together to continue to make 
this point. There are jobs here. There is an energy industry that is 
going to lead the economy of the next decades of this world, and we 
want America to be at the front of it and not to have sand thrown in 
our gears by the dirty, polluting energy industry that is on its way 
out as its last contribution to the damage it is now doing to our 
economy and to our environment.
  Mr. SANDERS. I wish to thank my friend from Rhode Island for his 
remarks and for his extraordinary effort in fighting for jobs and 
protecting our environment.
  If we read some headlines today in the media, we might think, 
especially the rightwing media, that renewable energy in America is on 
the verge of collapse. Quite literally--this is quite literally the 
case. A recent headline from FOX News said: ``Entire solar industry on 
brink of collapse.''
  The reality is quite the contrary. The fact is, not only is the solar 
industry not on the verge of collapse, the reality is the American 
solar energy industry is thriving, as is the renewable energy industry 
more broadly. We have doubled the number of solar jobs in America since 
2009. It does not sound to me like that industry is collapsing. It 
sounds to me like it is doing extraordinarily well.
  Today, more than 100,000 Americans work in the solar industry, at 
more than 5,000 companies in every single State in our country, and 
that includes manufacturing, installation, and supply chain jobs.

[[Page 19778]]

  Mr. President, last year we installed nearly 1,000 megawatts of solar 
power in the United States--more than double the amount installed in 
2009. That doesn't sound like an industry that is collapsing to me. 
With the solar industry growing at a rate of 69 percent annually, it is 
one of America's fastest growing industries and is creating jobs all 
over our country. The cost of solar panels has fallen 30 percent over 
just the last 2 years, continuing a long-term decline in the price of 
solar and making it more and more competitive with other energy 
technology.
  (Mrs. HAGAN assumed the Chair.)
  Madam President, everyone, from Walmart to the U.S. Marine Corps, is 
looking toward a future in solar. Walmart is installing solar panels at 
130 stores in California, and they say:

       Walmart has reduced energy expenses by more than a million 
     dollars through our solar program.

  The military--the U.S. Department of Defense--is using solar energy 
with battery storage to fully power forward operating bases in 
Afghanistan.
  Marine COL Bob Charette said:

       For the Marines, renewable energy is about saving lives by 
     reducing the number of dangerous fuel convoys needed for 
     resupply.

  The reason I am making these points is that many people don't know 
the extent to which we are already making progress in sustainable 
energy. We are on the verge of something extraordinary. But it is 
important to understand where we are today and to refute those people 
who suggest that solar and wind are not the technologies for the 
future.
  In terms of wind, that technology is growing rapidly. Texas alone has 
more than 10,000 megawatts of wind energy installed. That is equal in 
capacity to 10 nuclear powerplants--in Texas alone. Iowa now gets 20 
percent of its electricity from wind. There are 75,000 wind energy jobs 
in America today and more than 400 manufacturing facilities in 43 
States. The price of wind energy has dropped by 90 percent since 1980, 
and wind electricity today is competitive with fossil fuels at 5 to 6 
cents per kilowatt hour. At the same time, we are increasing American 
manufacturing of wind turbines, and now 60 percent of turbine 
components installed in the United States are made in America, up from 
25 percent in 2005.
  In the midst of this horrendous and painful recession, the story of 
renewable energy in the United States is actually a rare good news 
story. It is a good news story. Renewable energy is helping to cut 
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, it is making our country more 
energy independent, and it is creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
  But all of this could be significantly slowed down if we do not 
continue Federal support for the renewable energy industries at a 
fraction of the kind of support we are giving to fossil fuels. It is 
absurd that we even have to fight to extend renewable tax credits and 
grants when fossil fuel industries enjoy permanent subsidies. Mature 
industries, such as oil and gas, continue to reap billions every year 
in Federal subsidies and massive tax breaks that never expire, despite 
the fact that the top five oil companies earned nearly $1 trillion in 
profits over the last 10 years. So here we are struggling to help wind 
and solar--new technologies--and we are giving massive tax breaks to 
mature industries that are incredibly profitable.
  Contrast what we do for renewable energy to what we do with fossil 
fuel and specifically with regard to the production tax credit for wind 
energy, which was allowed to lapse three times in recent years--1999, 
2001, and 2003--leading to an average dropoff of 81 percent in new wind 
energy installation each time the credit expired. The wind credit is 
set to expire again in 2012.
  The point here is the one Senator Cardin made a moment ago. Unless 
there is predictability, unless the industry knows these tax credits 
will be there, they are not going to start investing or working on new 
projects only to have the rug pulled out from underneath them. They 
need stability and predictability, which is why we have to move not 
only to extending these tax credits but to making them permanent.
  I also want to say a word about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and that is 
to say there are some in the House and some in the Senate who want to 
use year-end legislation to tack on a rider that says to the State 
Department: You have to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline within 60 
days.
  Let's be clear about what we are talking about in terms of the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. What we are talking about is a 1,700-mile oil 
pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast that would carry tar sands oil. 
Tar sands oil is not like regular oil. It requires an energy-intensive 
process to get it out of the ground, extract it, and, in fact, to 
refine it. That means it emits approximately 82 percent more carbon 
emissions when produced compared to regular oil, according to the EPA.
  Tar sands oil is also hard to clean up when it spills. Refining tar 
sands also produces more toxic air pollution compared to conventional 
oil. A tar sands spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan that happened 
in 2010 is still being cleaned up, at a cost now exceeding $700 
million.
  In my view, the last thing we need is to eliminate the environmental 
and safety reviews now taking place and fast-track approval of this 
pipeline.
  I also note to my colleagues who want to fast-track Keystone XL that 
I, along with several other Senators and Congressmen, asked the State 
Department inspector general to look into allegations of conflicts of 
interest in the preparation of the environmental impact study of 
Keystone XL. The contractor the State Department used for the impact 
study, Cardno Entrix, has financial ties to the project developer, 
TransCanada. Those ties need to be investigated to ensure that the 
Federal environmental and safety reviews were done correctly and 
without bias. That inspector general special review is under way right 
now. I think it is completely inappropriate to try to fast-track this 
pipeline when we have not even heard back from the inspector general 
about potential conflicts of interest. I urge my colleagues to allow 
that special review to play out before any decisions are made.
  I will conclude my remarks this morning by thanking my colleagues for 
joining me--Senators Whitehouse, Boxer, and Cardin--who speak for many 
other Members of Congress and I think who speak for tens of millions of 
Americans, who see an energy future in this country in which we break 
our dependence on foreign oil, in which we no longer spend over $300 
billion a year for oil from Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries; 
who see a future in this country where we move toward energy 
independence; who see a future in this country where the United States 
is a leader in reversing global warming by not only cutting greenhouse 
gas emissions in America but providing technology and expertise for 
countries all over the world, for them to do the same; and also 
understand that, as we move to energy efficiency--and I have to tell 
you that in Vermont we are leading the country in energy efficiency. 
What we are seeing as we weatherize homes is fuel bills going down for 
the middle-class, working-class people by 30, 40, 50 percent. We are 
investing in weatherization, and the payback is pretty good. It takes 
place over a very few years, when you cut fuel prices 30 to 50 percent.
  In Vermont, we are probably doing as well as any other State in that 
area, but we can and will do a lot better. Tens of thousands of homes 
in our State can be weatherized. When we do that, we not only cut 
greenhouse gas emissions, we not only reduce the need to import foreign 
oil, we also create jobs. We create jobs for those people who are 
producing the insulation, the new doors, the windows, and the new 
roofing that makes homes and buildings more energy efficient.
  Furthermore, in our State and around the country, we are seeing, as I 
indicated a moment ago, significant progress in moving to sustainable 
energy--the solar industry, growing very rapidly; wind energy, growing 
very rapidly; other technologies, growing very rapidly. As a nation, we 
should be proud of the change that is taking place. But understand that 
we have a

[[Page 19779]]

long way to go to be the kind of energy efficient and sustainable 
energy Nation we know we can become and to help lead the world in a new 
energy direction.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________