Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind my colleague that wind and solar power is high-cost power. Wind and solar costs on average three times more per kilowatt hour. That's the whole energy debate. That's why you have to have low energy prices if you want jobs. And everybody thinks it's free. It's not free. It's more expensive energy.

But I'm here to thank my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Matsui, for her bill, H.R. 5156. That's what we're addressing today, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act. This came through the Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee on June 30 and in a markup of the full committee on July 21, both times passing by voice vote, and it's to her credit for her great work in a bipartisan manner.

The purpose of this bill is to create a 5-year, $15 million annual assistance fund within the Department of Commerce International Trade Administration. The purpose of the fund is to promote policies to reduce production costs, encourage innovation and investment, and create a clean energy export strategy.

I also commend the chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend Bobby Rush, for working with the minority to address our concerns and for offering a manager's amendment at the subcommittee markup that made two important changes. The first was to amend the definition of clean energy technology so that the definition would include nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration. It is important to recognize that nuclear power and clean coal are essential elements to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and thereby strengthening our energy security, and as I was mentioning, also keeping energy costs low. The second was to include a provision that explicitly prohibits any of the $75 million to be allocated in the form of grants.

However, if this Congress and this administration truly want to revitalize the manufacturing sector, the easiest path would be to pass the existing free trade agreements that are pending: South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. These are all gains for us. In any projection by any export strategy, these are gains in the manufacturing sector and in some of the agricultural sector I'll talk about later.

We always have to be concerned. Jobs and the economy is the number one issue in the country, but trailing close behind is the deficit and the national debt. So we've been harping on the fact that we really need things paid for now. The public is not allowing us to go along, continuing with multiple authorizations without saying these things have to be paid for, and as we've said in numerous other debates, if it's important enough to do, it is important enough to pay for.

I will just read from the CBO, ``Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis, Economic and Budget Issue Brief'' dated July 27. ``Unless policymakers,'' that's us, ``unless policymakers restrain the growth of spending,'' which is what we're not doing today, ``increase revenues significantly as a share of GDP, or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.''

I would submit that we're already at unsupportable levels, and so that's why we do support the bill. But we will always be looking for and making sure that additional spending and growth is offset with pay- fors.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am always honored to follow the dean of the House, Mr. Dingell, who is well known for his oratory ability and his passion, and we have great respect. But I have a few things to remind him too.

We passed a $1.2 trillion stimulus bill that was promised to reduce unemployment to 8 percent. Our unemployment is at 9.5 percent. We have 15 million unemployed Americans. Our issue is let's do things that help create jobs. And if we want to talk, you ought to go to the businesses that want to create jobs and they will tell you a cap-and-trade bill that raises carbon prices and energy cost does not help create jobs; in fact, it destroys jobs. It raises gasoline prices, at a minimum, 50 cents. It raises electricity rates. It raises consumer rates for what they pay for home electricity or home heating. And those are just the facts.

We are $13.5 trillion in debt. Now, part of my life--I don't talk about it very much--I taught high school for 4 years, and I taught government history. This authorization and appropriation debate is important because authorizing gives us the right to appropriate. You shouldn't--we do it sometimes--you should not appropriate without an authorization. So you can't hide behind the argument that it's just an authorization, it means nothing. Well, it does mean something. It does mean that you could go and get the money. If you don't authorize, you shouldn't. So that is why we are having this debate. $13.5 trillion. The public is concerned about debt and spending.

We can have a lot of feel-good legislation on the floor, and my colleagues are well-intentioned; but if we want to do things, if we want to fulfill the President's promise of doubling exports in 5 years, we ought to move on these three free trade agreements--Panama, Colombia, South Korea. As was stated, Harley Davidson would like to export motorcycles to Colombia, but they face a high tariff. A tariff is a tax. The tax imposed by Colombia is the only thing that makes our motorcycles not competitive in Colombia--and that's not Columbia, South Carolina, that's the country of Colombia.

Caterpillar would like to export more to Panama. Of course Caterpillar is a great Illinois company, big Earth-moving equipment. If there is talk of a new Panama Canal being built, we would like Caterpillar equipment building that. What prohibits that? A high import tax. That's why we have trade negotiations. And of course my corn and soybean, my pork producers and my beef producers would like to be in those markets.

So this is an important bill to talk about ``green'' industry and environment. I want to remind my folks that according to industry observers, lack of market expertise is not among the primary trade barriers. The three primary barriers to market entry are access to raw materials, labor rate comparisons, and access to foreign markets. This bill does nothing to address the serious market barriers. It also creates a risk of stifling future innovation and development once government picks winners and losers. The market will direct innovation and development once the government picks winners and losers.

Furthermore, China announced in the first week of July that it will cut rare Earth exports by 72 percent for the second half of this year. Rare Earth exports are the minerals needed in the green economy. They're going to control it. They're going to cut their exports. That's what we need, these minerals, to build this stuff. These resources are used in green technologies--in wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, as well as in national security and defense system, in consumer products such as new batteries on the Chevy Volt, mobile phones, PDAs and MP-3s. This cut will drop the amount of exports from just over 28,000 metric tons to just under 8,000 metric tons for the same period as last year.

So we have a challenge. We ought to be negotiating. We ought to get these rare Earth minerals released, or we ought to allow permitting to redevelop our mining operations for our rare Earth minerals. One is shut down; it will take us forever to re-permit it. Naturally we ought to be focusing on it.

Congresswoman Matsui is a well-respected member of the committee; we appreciate her good work. Of course, Bobby Rush, the chairman, does a great job in the city of Chicago. We appreciate the friendship. Unfortunately, we have to bring up other issues, but that is part of being the loyal opposition in these austere times.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my legislation, H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2010.

Our Nation is running a trade deficit in green technologies ranging in the billions, and the U.S. clean tech industry is lagging behind many of its competitors in exports, most notably China and Germany.

Currently, only six of the top 30 global clean energy companies are American-owned. This is simply unacceptable. We must not become a Nation dependent on foreign clean energy products. We must be the Nation that leads the world in manufacturing and exporting clean energy technologies. That is why I, along with Chairmen Rush and Dingell and Congresswoman Eshoo, introduced H.R. 5156 to boost the competitiveness of the U.S. clean energy industry.

Specifically, the bill would require the Department of Commerce, in coordination with relevant agencies, to implement, develop and sustain a National Clean Energy Technology Export Strategy to provide U.S. clean tech firms with export assistance in finding and navigating foreign markets to sell their goods and services to new customers.

The President has laid out a laudable goal to double U.S. exports over the next 5 years, and this legislation will ensure clean energy exports are at the forefront of our national export strategy. The bill will also help strengthen America's domestic clean tech manufacturing industry.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this legislation is a part of the Make It in America manufacturing agenda to demonstrate this Congress' commitment to the U.S. domestic manufacturing industry, and I applaud the majority leader's leadership in this.

This legislation encourages American clean energy manufacturers across the Nation to sell their American-made clean energy technologies here in America and around the world.

This is also about jobs. The Department of Energy has found that the emerging U.S. clean energy sector could create more than 750,000 jobs over the next decade. The clean energy emerging economy is one that we cannot afford to let pass us by.

Mr. Speaker, my home district of Sacramento is well positioned to be a national leader in manufacturing clean energy technologies, with more than 120 small and medium-sized clean energy companies in the region. Many of these companies are beginning to manufacture clean energy products or are seeking to expand their manufacturing operation and wanting to export through clean energy technologies to foreign markets.

However, unlike big U.S. companies, small and medium-sized firms simply do not have the resources and expertise to find and navigate foreign markets and are seeking assistance. In fact, according to the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee, more than 30 percent of nonexporting small and medium-sized companies would export if they had more access to market information, export opportunities, and the export process. Many of these companies have validated their clean energy technologies and are now looking to expand their businesses by exporting their goods and services to new foreign markets but actually lack the resources to do so.

Mr. Speaker, let me briefly clarify that this bill provides a modest authorization to help American small businesses with the manufacturing and export assistance they are seeking.

It is not an appropriations bill. As my colleagues on the other side are aware, authorization measures do not appropriate funds and they do not add a dime to our deficit. The measure would have to fit within our budget caps during the congressional appropriation process.

The bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. Therefore, PAYGO procedures would not apply, and it does not violate PAYGO rules.

Mr. Speaker, during the Energy and Commerce markup of this bill, we included several changes that my Republican colleagues recommended; most notably, working in a bipartisan manner, we expanded the definition of ``clean energy technology.''

We also include a transparency provision that requires the Commerce Department to report back to Congress within 180 days of enactment, a plan to assist small and medium-sized businesses, encourage job growth in the U.S. clean energy sector, and encourage greater domestic manufacturing of clean energy products.

H.R. 5156 will also enhance our standing in the race to be the global leader in clean energy. The BP oil spill only underscores the need for leadership in the clean energy market, and this bill will send a strong message that America is serious about being the leader and producing and exporting these technologies.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will support clean energy products being made in America and, in turn, will help families make it in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the author of the legislation, my dear friend from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to yield 3 minutes to the dean of the House and the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my dear friend Mr. Dingell.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me return our attention to the matter at hand, to the issue that is before us.

I want to, first of all, thank our chairman of the committee, Mr. Waxman, Chairman Waxman, and also the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Whitfield, for their vigorous support of H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2010. I was proud to cosponsor the bill with the author, Congresswoman Matsui of California, and also with my other cosponsors, Congresswoman Eshoo and our chairman emeritus, John Dingell.

I want to thank this lady to my left, Congresswoman Matsui, for her stellar leadership and for taking the lead on this critical issue.

I am asking my colleagues today to vote on this bill, a bill which addresses the challenges that we face in today's economy. My friends on the other side want to bring up a whole lot of other issues. They want to throw a lot of things on the floor. They want to try to baffle us with a lot of their sidebar discussion.

Yet this bill, the bill that is before us today, will help to increase American manufacturers' green products through the establishment of a Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Fund to assist U.S. businesses with exporting clean energy technology, products, and services.

We all, Mr. Speaker, know that America is a prime market for foreign manufacturers. The other side doesn't want to deal with the issues that we are discussing in this bill. Though, I must remind all of us that, far too often, the U.S. market is open to everybody else--open to global manufacturers--but sadly, the converse is not always the case. This is the case, however, for green technology products as our Nation is in a unique position to once again lead on a global scale.

The U.S. manufacturing industry faces serious challenges overseas despite the fact that we are a leader in green technology. As I have said repeatedly, we must seize the energy opportunity that we have today lest we slip further behind to foreign competition. We must seize the time, Mr. Speaker, and now is the time. Now is the time. There is no other time like this time. Now is the time.

We need a strong domestic policy to allow the manufacturing industry to be confident enough to penetrate the international market. Also, it is equally important to strengthen and transform our economy and, in doing so, to further assert our global leadership. The disaster that continues to take place in the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of the BP oil spill is a wake-up call. We should not only be a global leader in offshore technology; we should also be a leader in green and clean technology exports. When I say ``clean,'' Mr. Speaker, I also mean responsible energy technology.

This bill is results-oriented because I have added language that helps us to evaluate the impact of this program on its ability to create jobs, including the gathering of specific information as to the nature, location, and the duration of those jobs, as well as the methodology used by the Secretary to compile such needed and necessary information.

Mr. Speaker, the jabbering and the nattering, let's bring that to a screeching halt on this bill. This is an important bill. This bill has to go forward. It has to go forward for the American people. It has to go forward for the American economy. It has to go forward so that we can once again assert our leadership across the world in the manufacturing sector, the green and clean manufacturing sector.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and to expand their commitment to significantly increase our exports.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5156, the Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act.

I commend my good friend from Illinois for the outstanding work he did in leading the subcommittee and moving this and the other legislation forward

today, and I also commend my colleagues, Ms. Matsui and Ms. Eshoo, as well as Mr. Rush, for their original cosponsorship, of which I am also proud to be one.

This bill will build up domestic manufacturing by promoting exports and clean energy technologies and will help the United States develop an early competitive advantage in this area. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially my good Republican friends, to join us in moving this legislation forward.

Now, we hear some objections to the bill's costs. It's time they be reminded that this is not an appropriation but an authorization. Moreover, should the funds be appropriated, H.R. 5156 will more than pay for itself through the growth in tax receipts from increased corporate revenue. The Department of Commerce estimates that every dollar invested in export promotion generates $56 worth of exports.

I urge my colleagues again to join me in moving this forward.

Thus in a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, additional revenues of only $40 million a year would have to be generated to cover the bill's annual $15 million authorization. This is more than double that which is based on the Department of Commerce's export promotion cost benefit analysis.

Mr. Speaker, if my Republican and Democratic colleagues are truly concerned about promoting job growth and improving the economy, they should vote in favor of this eminently sensible bill.

I've been a little distressed to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle making a fuss about the fact that they don't like things like cap-and-trade and other matters. That bill is not before us, and most of the other questions are not before us. I would remind my colleagues here that we are discussing increasing job opportunities at home by exporting things which are valuable and which help the world and which help the United States. I would remind my colleagues that they are better served to light a little candle rather than to sit there quietly and to curse the darkness.

When this administration came in, I would remind my colleagues that the previous administration had left us two wars, a depression, and a deficit of $1.3 trillion. We are still trying to dig out of the mess which was left us by our Republican colleagues, and I would urge them to cooperate with us and to focus on the important things about creating jobs and getting opportunity and economic activity going forward. To continue the kind of self-defeating program that my Republicans seem to be sponsoring on the other side of the aisle----

I would urge my colleagues on the other side to join us. Let us move forward towards jobs; let us move forward towards economic development and activity; let us move forward towards cooperation on important matters, like seeing to it that the economy gets moving and Americans are going back to work.

Let's not sit around here whining and complaining about situations about which we have nobody at this particular minute at this particular time to address it. But we are addressing three pieces of legislation that are going to make economic prosperity a greater reality and a more real object of our attentions.

I urge my Republican colleagues to cease this nitpicking on the floor and this nattering, which I'm hearing coming from the other side, and work with us to put Americans back to work. And let us understand that the people have spoken in the last election, and they spoke for jobs and change. We are trying to give it to them, and we invite our Republican colleagues to give us a little bit of that cooperation that will enable us to move more easily forward.

I thank my colleagues.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as I stood a few minutes before in expressing my concerns about the bill that Representative Lipinski brought forth, the same issue exists with regard to my good friend from California (Ms. Matsui) regarding H.R. 5156, Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act.

Ms. Matsui, Mr. Speaker, just momentarily said we need to be exporting clean energy technology. Well, with all due respect, what we need to be exporting is beef and pork and corn and soybeans and, yes, Harley Davidson would like to export a few motorcycles to Colombia, but they can't do it because they face such a high tariff.

Again, the bill is fine as far as it goes, other than the fact that you are authorizing another $75 million. And you can say, well, it's an authorization; it's not an appropriation. But if you give permission within committee to let those that do the appropriating, you essentially open up the floodgates for 75 additional million dollars of taxpayer-funded programs.

As President Reagan said, you know, government is not the solution to our problems; it is the problem. More and more government growth, spending, deficit debt, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the American people have spoken. I'm going to tell you they are going to speak again.

We leave here, I guess, sometime Friday afternoon, and we will be in our district work period this year for not 1 month but probably 6 weeks. We have got to face these people, not just me in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia, but every one of us. All 435 of us have got to go home and look these folks in the eye.

We have to say, you know, I am trying to explain to you why, in our last week before our break, we authorized another $75 million worth of spending, adding to the $1.4 trillion deficit this year and, indeed, finally adding to the national debt which is now, as we all know, over $13 trillion, something like 95 percent of our gross domestic product. That makes no sense.

Again, with all due respect, I know these bills came through committee, voice voted in subcommittee and full committee, but there were concerns. There were concerns about the spending.

Representative Parker Griffith, Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Alabama, had an amendment. He said, Look, we need deficit neutrality in this bill.

That was one thing that we did vote on, that amendment, and it failed along party lines 30-15, even though the majority party keeps saying, well, you know, we honor PAYGO--except when we don't honor it.

Again, my colleague from California is a most respected Member of the committee and this House. As a friend of mine, she is trying, just as Representative Lipinski was trying with his bill. But let's get the job done by lowering corporate tax rates and taking the burden, the regulatory burden off of our manufacturers, and go ahead and pass these free trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama.

They have been negotiated to a fare-thee-well, and I think the Democratic majority ought to explain to the American people why we don't do that. That's what we need to do to grow jobs immediately and not just continue to kick the can down the road and study it and study it and study it with an unemployment rate of 10 percent and 16 million people, many of them in the manufacturing sector--in fact, 2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last couple of years.

This has got to stop.