Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. You know, I think with regard to all of the great economic activity you are talking about, when we are talking about the cost of not taking action, it is not only an environmental cost, it is not only the direct impact of global climate change, we are also talking about disrupting a lot of these science and research, economic activities, undermining our own national security, all these other costs. So it is frustrating when people try to say, oh, this costs money. Well, you have to look at the cost of not taking action, which is far greater, orders of magnitude greater, than what we are talking about here, which is a very practical way to boost this industry and create green jobs.

Mr. POLIS. I would like to welcome our good friend Mr. Connolly from Virginia.

Mr. POLIS. When we hear about all these wonderful things, battery storage technologies, jobs being created in New Mexico and New York, clean electric vehicles, what we are talking about and the nexus to why this is important and what American families need to know is the American Clean Energy and Security Act is the enabling law that allows all of this to occur. All of this great stuff that we are talking about, the job creation, the clean cars, the storage, this will all be dealt a huge blow if Congress fails to act. That is why the stakes for this debate are so important.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Connolly, you know, one of the things that Mr. Heinrich talked about, he said, you know, if these jobs aren't created here, they're going to be created elsewhere. The research will be done elsewhere. The fact that the American industry, the companies that you recognize, who are, many of them American-based companies, feel that this is good policy. These are global problems we're facing. Some way or other the world is going to need to wean itself off fossil fuels. Don't you think that this policy helps make sure that those solutions happen here in this country?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Tonko.

Mr. POLIS. So what you're saying is, you know, rather than, we're sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year to Saudi Arabia, to the Arab countries, to Venezuela. That money is gone from America when it's gone. And we send it over there and that's fueling their economy. We can recapture some of that money here and create clean energy here.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Heinrich.

Mr. POLIS. You know, and a good point you raise, you're right. New Mexico and also my home State of Colorado have really been leaders in terms of instituting renewable energy standards, also instituting incentives for solar technology. You know, at our State level and probably yours, the opponents made the same arguments. They said, oh, this is going to drive jobs out of Colorado and New Mexico. This is going to hurt the economy. Well, here we are several years down the road. This has made both of our economies stronger. I mean, isn't this a great success story in New Mexico?

Mr. POLIS. You know, Colorado is in this boat and I think New Mexico too. We are blessed with some natural resources, with natural gas and with oil. And I have to tell you, it's a mixed blessing. First of all, it's highly cyclical. We've been through several cycles in Colorado where there's been oil boom times. Everybody was riding high. Three years later the price crashes: everybody's out of work, everybody's looking for work. We are also using a nonrenewable energy source. You take it out of the ground, it's gone. We're also destroying one of our other revenue sources, and it's frequently at odds with the tourism industry, with preserving our natural heritage of great value to Colorado residents, the quality of life that attracts people to New Mexico and Colorado in the first place. I mean, you know, we can have and we do have now, thanks to the leadership in our State of Governor Ritter and, in fact, the leadership of our voters who passed a number of these initiatives overwhelmingly. The renewable energy standard was passed by Colorado voters with over 60 percent of the vote. They didn't buy the arguments of the other side. It's even more popular today, 5 years down the road, than it was at the time because people have seen that effect. We can have a more stable economy. We can create jobs, and we can promote a clean environment all at the same time.

Mr. POLIS. I'm really happy that my good friend Mr. Tonko from New York brought up the demand side in conserving energy. There are many Federal energy efficiency provisions that are part of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. And in terms of what they mean to American families, the estimates are that American families will save $750 per year per household within 10 years because of the energy efficiency provisions of this bill. You know, what would you do with another $750 a year? That is the savings the average American family will have as a result of the energy efficiencies presented in this bill.

Mr. POLIS. Well, $3,900 in 20 years, and in 10 years, $750. I mean, that is a lot of money for American families that this bill saves right there.

Mr. POLIS. The American Clean Energy and Security Act will help make sure that a lot of this technology is created here. We all worry about the trade deficit. It seems like America doesn't make anything anymore. It seems like we're importing everything from all over the world. Well, here is our opportunity to start making things again. I visited a company in my district 2 weeks ago. They got a big order from China for solar panels. They are exporting solar panels from Colorado to China.

Mr. POLIS. So you're saying that it's going to create a lot of jobs. But there is a family out there, and let's say they're a steelworker, let's say they are working in some of these industries; we can reassure them that this won't hurt their competitiveness in the global environment at all. That has been dealt with in this bill, right?

Mr. POLIS. And as Mr. Heinrich pointed out, along the way they actually have an incentive; they actually get paid. They earn money if they find more energy-efficient ways to produce these metals, which of course they're going to. Again, American ingenuity, as Mr. Tonko talked about. There is no problem that's created that Yankee ingenuity can't solve. And technology has been a great force of growth for this country. And Mr. Connolly pointed out, you know what? They probably will be there with the right incentives by 2025. Not only will this bill help create a whole new green tech and manufacture and research base, but it can also be the salvation of some of our existing manufacturing jobs by showing them the way to do it more cleanly and actually providing an economic incentive that is actually money in the pockets of workers and companies manufacturing in this country by being ahead of the curve and ending their reliance on fossil fuels.

Mr. POLIS. You know, and again, what started this whole discussion is the cost of inaction, and we're talking about the benefits of action. And I think we've made that case; I mean, when it's 750 bucks a year in your family's pocket, whether it's extra jobs being created or whether it's us exporting technology to China and Europe, I mean, these are the benefits. And when we look at the cost side, that cost side is skewed towards not taking any action.

Mr. POLIS. As Mr. Tonko pointed out, another cost which we never hear the folks on the other side talking about, a cost of our reliance on oil, over $800 billion with the war in Iraq. Our foreign adventures in the Middle East, even absent the first war in Kuwait that we had to liberate Kuwait, the new war in Iraq, our ongoing presence in the region, these are all costs that the American taxpayers are paying. Where is the outrage from the other side of the aisle, as stewards of our taxpayer dollars, about all that money that is built into our reliance on foreign oil? That is all money that is leaving our country, never to be seen again. Not only are we sending all of our money to buy barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia, we are sending our young men and women, our brothers and sisters over there to risk their lives for those barrels of oil that we have coming back. I mean, this is critical for the national security of our Nation.

Mr. POLIS. I mean, wind and solar, they don't fluctuate like that. The quantities are there. I mean, absent a bill like this, we could very well see $5 a gallon, $6 a gallon of gas. I saw oil again hit a peak today. It was up over $80 a barrel. The dollar is weakening. Why is the dollar weakening? Because global investors are losing confidence in our currency. We can restore that confidence by being the centerpiece of this green revolution.

Mr. POLIS. Our time is soon coming to an end. Do you have any closing thoughts, Mr. Heinrich?

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, we are truly on the verge of a historic moment. We're moving closer and closer to finally achieving legislation that will put us on the right path towards true energy independence and true environmental protection. Legislation that, at the same time, will grow our economy through clean energy jobs and promote an investment in cutting-edge American technology all while addressing the costly damages to our public health, economy and environment that is coming and will come from a changing climate. The Republican Party just doesn't seem to get it. They don't seem to understand that the American people know that the cost of inaction is far higher than the cost of action. The same scare tactics and lack of faith in science and in American innovation which lost them the last election won't fool the American people. Madam Speaker, the minority party has chosen to put this debate in oversimplified and disingenuous terms, and that's truly sad. They've decided to call our clean energy future a tax because they don't think the American people can figure out the truth, that endangering our economy, our public health and our environment is what is truly taxing our Nation. Madam Speaker, what the Republicans are espousing is a tax of inaction. The Republican inaction tax will cost our country many, many middle-class careers. The Republican inaction tax will mean harm to family farms, harm to water sources, and harm to the fastest-growing sector of American jobs, clean energy infrastructure. This Republican inaction tax means higher energy costs for families who won't be able to weatherize their homes or invest in energy efficiency. The Republican inaction tax will pass along growing debt to our children by leaving behind opportunities to invest in innovative sectors and businesses that we are promoting in this American Clean Energy and Security Act. The Republican inaction tax will mean further devastation to our real estate market, as melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels could cost our Nation hundreds of billions of dollars in lost real estate value. This Republican inaction tax will cost the American people nearly $1.9 trillion annually, or 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, by 2100. It's time we have a real debate on this issue, not rhetorical oversimplifications that fail to serve our country but with the high-minded debate that we all deserve. It's time that we discuss what's really in this bill. I would like to welcome my colleague and good friend from New Mexico, Representative Martin Heinrich, who has a lot to say about what this bill has to offer.

Mr. POLIS. I have a question on that. I've heard supporters of this Republican inaction tax trying to argue that this bill costs jobs, that somehow this is going to be bad for the economy. A lot of what you've been talking about, I mean, a solar plant hiring 1,400 people in your district, job growth on the infrastructure side. It certainly sounds to me like by passing this bill, it's going to lead to even more job growth in your district. Is that what you've been finding?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 2410, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011. I would like to thank Chairman Berman and the House Foreign Affairs Committee for their continued insight, leadership, and their focus on diplomacy in the realm of foreign affairs and for bringing this much-needed reform legislation to the House floor. Mr. Speaker, during the Bush administration, the Department of Defense acted as our primary foreign liaison, much to the detriment of our relationships worldwide. This bill corrects the damage done over the past 8 years by providing the State Department with much-needed resources that will once again make diplomacy the centerpiece of our outreach effort. This bill authorizes funding for the State Department and USAID to help prevent, navigate, and peacefully resolve foreign crises. This bill strengthens our own Nation by putting forth the image of America that we want the world to see: a hardworking nation rooted in tolerance and innovation. It reflects our commitment to intellectual diplomacy and allows the United States to lead by example. For instance, by doubling the amount of volunteers in the Peace Corps, we can double our response to humanitarian and international development needs. By creating the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation, we would allow more students, regardless of their economic background, to experience foreign cultures. This legislation creates 1,500 foreign service jobs at the State Department with another 700 at USAID over the course of fiscal years 2010 and 2011. It funds language training programs, sorely neglected for years due to underfunding. As the Representative of the Second District of Colorado, we have a large Tibetan and Tibetan Buddhist community, and I'm particularly appreciative that this bill establishes a Tibet section in the American Embassy in Beijing and a United States consulate in Lhasa, Tibet. These offices will follow political, economic, and social developments inside the country and report on human rights. It also establishes a Tibetan scholarship program that will enhance cultural exchange possibilities for American students and develop increased understanding of the region as a whole. Another crucial element of modernizing the State Department is fighting the discrimination against the LGBT community worldwide, including in Iraq. This legislation requires the State Department to monitor and track violence, criminalization, and restrictions on fundamental freedoms, basic human rights, consistent with U.S. law. It requires the State Department to demand foreign governments to change or repeal discriminatory laws that criminalize homosexuality as well as requiring reports on related violence and discrimination. This will ensure that our foreign counterparts heed our rejection of intolerance and ensure that all people are granted the dignity they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I also applaud H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement, or PEACE, Act. It demonstrates America's commitment to foreign diplomacy and codifies the principle that social and economic development is critical to fighting terrorism and promoting peace. Both bills bring to mind T.H. White's idea that ``might is not right.'' Military intervention is not as strong a diplomatic tool as fostering understanding. I urge my colleagues to support and vote ``yes'' on the rule and the bill.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment made in order by the rule, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011. I applaud and thank Chairman Berman and his staff for their hard work and their dedication to this important issue. This legislation truly represents a renewed emphasis on meaningful dialogue and strong diplomacy as it sets forth to increase our number of Foreign Service officers, grow our Peace Corps mission, develop new educational and cultural exchange programs, and expand our public diplomacy efforts. Mr. Chairman, my amendment calls on the Department, as part of the public outreach and public diplomacy efforts, to make materials found in libraries, resource centers and film screenings available online to help showcase United States culture, society and values in history to as many individuals as possible. It also adds online outreach as an evaluation criteria for our public outreach efforts. The Internet has made the world a smaller place, making it easier to share information globally in just a matter of seconds. It's imperative that we utilize the Internet as a means of public diplomacy and continue to explore the effectiveness of online outreach. My amendment also tasks the State Department with diversifying the experience of Foreign Service officers. Through creative diplomacy and hard work in often harsh conditions, our Nation's top diplomatic corps make an enormous contribution to global peace and stability and to the way in which our Nation is viewed overseas. However, many of the best and brightest Foreign Service officers feel forced to focus exclusively on a region or country, frequently avoiding critical assignments in nonregional bureaus, to the detriment of those offices and causes. They aren't avoiding these assignments because they don't care about these issues without borders, like human rights, the environment or refugees issues, but rather because the State Department's promotion system strongly favors those Foreign Service officers who focus on country- specific or regional assignments. My amendment is designed to correct this inequity and to pave the way for a more balanced and effective diplomatic corps. It requires that the Secretary of State, acting through the Director General of the Foreign Service, submit a detailed plan to Congress on how the Department will increase career incentives for Foreign Service officers to serve in bureaus and offices not primarily focused on regional issues. We further ask that the Department consider requiring all Foreign Service officers to serve at least 2 years in a bureau or office that's not focused exclusively on a regional issue before joining the Senior Foreign Service. The amendment also recommends that a composition of Foreign Service selection boards include the participation of Department personnel with extensive experience in nonregional assignments. I believe this amendment will help shake up the current system of promotion in the Foreign Service, and result in a stronger and better diplomatic corps that's able to apply lessons learned from throughout the globe with deep sector expertise when tackling issues such as human rights, the environment, population and refugees. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Berman of California.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, as the State Department attempts to restore its role as the face of the United States Government abroad, it is crucial that Congress provide our diplomats with the resources and the guidance they need to once again make American diplomacy a top priority. This legislation is further strengthened by my amendment, which expands public outreach online and encourages the Foreign Service to promote a more diverse set of experiences for its officers, including its senior officers. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.