U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–444 PDF 2012

HOW OBAMA’S GREEN ENERGY AGENDA IS

KILLING JOBS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011

Serial No. 112–116

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.house.gov/reform
(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

CONNIE MACK, Florida

TIM WALBERG, Michigan

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee

JOE WALSH, Illinois

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking

Minority Member

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

PETER WELCH, Vermont

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JACKIE SPEIER, California

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 22, 2011 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Solis, Hilda, Secretary, Department of Labor; Daniel B. Poneman, Deputy

Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy; and Keith Hall, Commissioner,

Bureau of Labor Statistics ........................................................................... 42

Hall, Keith ................................................................................................. 68

Poneman, Daniel B. .................................................................................. 53

Solis, Hilda ................................................................................................. 42

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland, Brookings Institute study ...................................................... 78

Hall, Keith, Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 70

Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California, staff report .................................................................................. 6

Poneman, Daniel B., Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 55

Solis, Hilda, Secretary, Department of Labor, prepared statement of ......... 45

(1)

HOW OBAMA’S GREEN ENERGY AGENDA IS

KILLING JOBS

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Issa, Platts, Jordan, Chaffetz, Mack,

Walberg, Lankford, Amash, Buerkle, Gosar, Labrador, DesJarlais,

Guinta, Farenthold, Kelly, Cummings, Towns, Norton, Kucinich,

Tierney, Cooper, Connolly, Quigley, Davis, and Welch.

Staff present: Molly Boyl, parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady,

staff director; Joseph A. Brazauskas and Hudson T. Hollister, counsels; Katelyn E. Christ, research analyst; John Cuaderes, deputy

staff director; Adam P. Fromm, director of Member services and

committee operations; Tyler Grimm, professional staff member;

Christopher Hixon, deputy chief counsel, oversight; Justin

LoFranco, deputy director of digital strategy; Mark D. Marin, director of oversight; Kristina M. Moore, senior counsel; Beverly Britton

Fraser, Claire Coleman, and Donald Sherman, minority counsels;

Kevin Corbin, minority deputy clerk; Ashley Etienne, minority director of communications, Carla Hultberg, minority chief clerk;

Chris Knauer, minority senior investigator; Lucinda Lessley, minority policy director; Dave Rapallo, minority staff director; and Susanne Sachsman Grooms, minority chief counsel.

Chairman ISSA. This hearing will come to order.

The Oversight Committee’s mission statement is, we exist to secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a right to

know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent.

And second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government

that works for them.

Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee

is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. Because taxpayers have a right

to know what they get from their government. We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to

the American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is our mission.

Today we are going to talk about affordable energy, the lifeblood

of America’s rise in a global economy. We will touch on a number

of clear issues, successes and failures. First of all, the American

people know well that leveraging energy more efficiently is in fact
2

necessary to compete in a global environment. America produces

products for a fraction of the energy used by China and other developing nations. We already are more efficient.

Yet, the Obama administration has systematically waged a war

on carbon-based energy in pursuit of new ‘‘green’’ energy. This campaign includes aggressive regulatory programs impacting the oil,

gas and coal industries that have previously been the source of job

creation and economic growth here in America. And a campaign

that includes an aggressive push for government-backed, taxpayerpaid for green energy and green jobs.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s green energy agenda appears

to be playing favorites with certain comapnies. Additionally, we are

well aware that there is a lot more ‘‘green’’ in the way of cash and

a lot less energy and jobs than anticipated. Facing the worst economic recession since the Great Depression, President Obama confronted the economic crisis with a proposal for green jobs. He cited

the efforts of other nations as a rationale to subsidize our way to

new technology and energy independence.

Yet as this hearing, and a report released by the committee

today, will demonstrate, the other nations who have tried the same

approach have experienced mixed results at best. President Obama

relied on a false pretense that subsidizing green energy as other

nations, such as Spain, Germany and Japan did, would result in

good, high-wage jobs, when in actuality, nations such as Spain,

Italy, Denmark, Germany and the U.K. have struggled with job destruction, higher energy costs and loss of taxpayer dollars as a result of pursuing such policies.

Looking back on the Obama green energy record, 3 years and billions of taxpayer dollars later, the American people have received

very little return on the President’s signature investment. In practice, the guise of green jobs has become a political rallying cry designed to unite environmentalists and union leaders to consolidate

an ideologically based agenda. This would be okay if in fact it produced the jobs. And it didn’t. It has almost meant punishing and

pushing to the edge of the envelope all others. It has meant the

politicization of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has begun

using gimmick accounting methods to count green jobs.

And let me emphasize, we don’t count similar carbon jobs. We

don’t count the other jobs. This initiative ordering the counting of

green jobs is very important, because it is poorly defined.

I might mention today the staff on both sides of the dais will be

counted as green jobs created under this standard. Yes, if we talk

about green jobs, if we lobby for green jobs, as a matter of fact, if

you are a paid lobbyist, you count for green jobs, you count as

green jobs.

The agenda also has been driven by political favoritism. And

there are accusations of pay to play relationships benefiting private

investors on the back of public loan guarantees as in the case of

Solyndra.

We are not here to investigate that today. Our mission is broader. It is seemingly at cross purposes to President Obama and his

administration who have promoted traditional energy sources

abroad through loans and diplomacy, while openly discouraging

them at home. We cannot in fact raise the cost of our energy while
3

promoting other countries finding lower cost carbon-based energy

and assume that we are being more competitive.

Jobs have not been produced in a sustained fashion or in the

number promised. And billions of taxpayer dollars have yielded little to truly stimulate the economy. All while a vital domestic engine of growth, the U.S. energy production industry, has been

choked, starved and hyper-regulated.

Addressing these shortcomings will deliver on a goal that both

President Obama and members of this committee share: creating

jobs and growing the economy while delivering affordable energy to

the American consumer and business.

It is very clear that many of us on both sides of the aisle hoped

for better than we got. Today’s hearing is to come to the reality

that no matter how often we hope for better, this committee has

an obligation to recognize when we fail to achieve it.

I now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I

thank you for calling this hearing.

Madam Secretary, it is an honor indeed, a tremendous honor to

have you here today. I am sure you have testimony that goes just

the opposite of what the chairman has just talked about, and I look

forward to hearing it. The administration is fortunate to have your

commitment to the environment, to our economy and to American

jobs.

I also welcome Deputy Secretary Poneman from the Department

of Energy and Dr. Hall, a good friend from the Department of

Labor.

When I go home to my district in Baltimore, my constituents are

clear about what they want. They want jobs. They don’t care if

these jobs are green, purple or any other color, as long as they pay

a fair wage and give them a sense of prosperity and a hope for

their children’s future.

My constituents also tell me they are tired of the inflammatory

rhetoric coming out of Washington, and I agree. Some Members appear to be more interested in making wild allegations for political

purposes than in finding solutions to the challenges we face.

Let me give you an example. On September 8th, the chairman

issued a staff report claiming the Recovery Act was a failure because it ‘‘destroyed’’ or forestalled one million private sector jobs.

To support this conclusion, the report cited only a single study

issued in May. That study was quickly discredited for its flawed

methodology. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman called the underlying

study ‘‘weak and dubious.’’ He warned that it was being ‘‘seized on

by people who have no idea what the issues are.’’

In contrast, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in its most recent report that the Recovery Act ‘‘increased

the number of people employed by between one million and 2.9 million’’ and ‘‘increased the number of full-time equivalent jobs by 1.4

million to 4 million.’’ Other mainstream economists agree with the

CBO.

A second example of this false rhetoric is the title of today’s hearing: ‘‘How Obama’s Green Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs.’’ I guess

that is President Obama. Despite this rhetoric, there is no evidence

that the administration’s clean energy programs are resulting in
4

fewer jobs. In fact, just the opposite. Developing clean energy technologies is critical to our economic survival, and our competitors

know this. China is making massive investments in clean energy

programs and dominating these sectors. America is losing its edge

in the global marketplace. And we will lose the future ownership

of these technologies and the jobs they create if we fail to support

these sectors.

As a third example, the chairman appeared on national television

this week and accused specific Members of Congress of crony capitalism for supporting green initiatives in their district. He called

this ‘‘corruption.’’ And he claimed that it was ‘‘endemic.’’

He also said this, ‘‘There has been this attitude that somehow

government can weigh in with loan guarantees and money and pick

winners, specific company winners and losers.’’ But just last year,

in 2010, the chairman wrote personally to the Secretary of Energy

seeking a loan guarantee for an electric vehicle company in San

Diego. He not only supported one company, but he endorsed the entire concept of green energy. He said this loan would help in ‘‘shifting away from fossil fuels and using viable renewable energy

sources.’’

He said the loan would ‘‘reduce dependence on foreign oil, enhance energy security and promote domestic job creation throughout California as well as in other States.’’

Mr. Chairman, in terms of this loan program, it seems like you

were for it before you were against it.

And according to this morning’s press reports, 10 other Members

on your side wrote similar letters. And I have no problem, I have

absolutely no problem, with these letters or your praise for the program. But I disagree with the claim that Members who support

green energy are somehow corrupt.

My basic point is this. If we are going to compete with China in

the decades to come, we need to be responsible and serious in our

efforts. We need to do what my constituents and your constituents

and the majority of Americans elected us to do. We need to focus

on creating jobs, boosting the economy and serving the interests of

the American citizen.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

As a point of personal privilege, I would ask unanimous consent

that the article by a division of the New York Times, put into and

for the purposes of your opening statement written before it was

published at 10 o’clock last night, be placed in the record. In that

statement, in that article it does in fact state 10 Members targeted

to say that if we ask for money already in the pipeline to be considered for various projects, that somehow we support it.

I am a supporter of green, of electric and hybrid vehicles and

have no problem at all with trying to have vehicles that use more

efficient electricity, whether it is from nuclear or other zero emissions. Having said that, I would object to the gentleman’s—you

may.

Your opening statement was clearly written in anticipation of an

article not yet published and we all know it here.

Additionally, I would ask unanimous consent that the majority

Oversight Reform Staff report entitled, and I will have it edited,
5

‘‘How President Obama’s Green Energy Agenda is Killing Jobs.’’

Without objection, so ordered. The actual reason for this hearing

today, which is in fact to find the connection between green expenditures and jobs.

Howerver, if the gentleman would like to research any of those

projects, we certainly would consider hearings on that.

[The information referred to follows:]
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

Chairman ISSA. Members will have 7 days to submit opening

statements and extraneous material for the record.

The Chair now recognizes our first panel of witnesses: the Honorable Hilda Solis, a long-time classmate and fellow Californian, and

Secretary of Labor. Mr. Daniel Poneman, who is Deputy Secretary

of Energy. Thank you for being here. And Dr. Keith Hall, is Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the Department of

Labor.

Pursuant to the committee’s rule, all witnesses are to be sworn.

Would you please rise to take the oath? And raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman ISSA. Let the record indicate all witnesses answered in

the affirmative.

Madam Secretary, you have been on this side of the dais, so I

will only say it for the other two. Your entire opening statements

will be placed in the record. The 5-minutes, fairly close, with the

usual green, yellow and red, is designed for you to expand on that

as you see fit. I understand that sometimes you are restricted to

the words that have been cleared. But to the greatest extent possible, we would like you to use the time to go beyond the written

statements, which are in the record.

Madam Secretary.

STATEMENTS OF HILDA SOLIS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR; DANIEL B. PONEMAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; AND KEITH HALL, COMMISSIONER,

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

STATEMENT OF HILDA SOLIS

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, and

Ranking Member Cummings and the other members of this committee. I want to thank you for the invitation to come and speak

to you about the Department of Labor’s efforts to help State and

local governments and businesses, community colleges, non-profit

groups and work force agencies provide training to prepare America’s workers to succeed in the clean energy economy of the 21st

century.

The authors of a recent report by the Brookings Institution estimates that 2.7 million Americans are employed in positions related

to the clean economy, and that 90 percent of these jobs are located

in traditional industry sectors, such as manufacturing and exports.

The Recovery Act was an unprecedented investment in the green

economy. Our Recovery Act investments, I believe, were wise decisions. The green economy is growing significantly faster than the

national economy, and therefore, we believe, can provide a path to

a more successful recovery.

The vibrancy of the green economy is not artificially propped up

by Recovery Act investments. In fact, the Recovery Act investments

supply simply supported the investments that private sector corporations have already made that they deem wise. Venture capitalists are voting with their dollars in favor of the future of the green

economy, according to the Brookings Institution report.
43

As part of the Recovery Act, the Department of Labor awarded $500 million in competitive grants to fund 189 green job projects

throughout the country. Our grants have several important objectives. We have aligned our grants closely with the local and regional labor market needs by requiring our grantees to partner

with local businesses that place a high value on innovation.

We also are targeting our grants to serve Americans in most

need of help, like veterans, disabled veterans, unemployed workers

with disabilities and workers in areas of high poverty. Our grants

give these populations a chance at a secure, well-paying job in the

future economy as well as now.

For example, in Indiana, a partnership that included the Workforce Development, Natural Resources and Transportation Department and the National Guard provided 2,000 young people with

green jobs through the Recovery Act funding.

We are starting to see some good results from our Recovery Act

investments. As of June 2011, over 52,000 people have participated

in our green training grant programs. We expect to eventually

serve about 100,000. And about 60 percent of those participants

were unemployed when they started training. The rest had jobs,

they are known as incumbent workers, that needed training to ensure that they could keep their jobs. To date, well over 26,000 participants have completed their training. And more than half of

them who didn’t have a job when they started training now do. As

these grants progress, we know that these numbers will increase.

These results are consistent with the data that shows the green

economy in general. And according to Brookings, wages in the

green economy are 13 percent higher and provide these good wages

to workers in many cases with lower skills. In fact, according to

Brookings, almost half of all green jobs are held by workers with

a high school degree or less. Yet they are more likely to make good

wages or better wages than other low-skilled workers.

For the most part, there are no low-wage jobs in the green economy. Our efforts didn’t end with the Recovery Act, however. Our

Green Jobs Innovation Fund program is building on the success of

our Recovery Act program. We just awarded six grants totaling $38

million. One of those grants went to Jobs for the Future, which is

serving over 1,000 unemployed and lower-skilled workers in seven

cities. The innovative programs use both workers and employers as

equal partners in expanding the green jobs pipeline.

Serving today’s youth is critical to our green jobs effort, because

they are suffering, especially our youth, unprecedented high numbers of unemployment. And I am especially proud to work with the

Office of Apprenticeship, which has worked with employers to identify several new occupations for a very important program, known

as wind turbine technician, energy auditors and well-drilling operators. With us today in the audience are Scott Grant and Charlie

Kauffman and Jerry Robinson, who are local D.C. area employers

that partner with the Department of Labor to provide green apprenticeships.

Our DOL Youth Build program is also training young people for

the growth industries of the future, such as in green construction.

For example, at Case Verde Youth Build in Austin, Texas, youth

are being trained to install solar panels, and youth are also build-
44

ing energy-efficient and affordable homes in East Austin. In the audience today we have Eric Rodriguez and Cornelius Stark, who are

learning green building techniques through our Youth Build program located here in Washington, DC.

Our Job Corps program has trained more than 15,000 students

over the past few years in green training jobs. For example, at

Clearfield Job Corps Center in Utah, 14 students graduated in our

green training program and they all found jobs. The Department

is upholding the administration’s commitment to accountability

and transparency in the programs. We continuously monitor our

green investments to make sure that they are achieving all of their

objectives.

But I would like to underscore, because I know my time is running out, that we do everything we can to help provide better monitoring tools. We do that on a regular basis. And if we do find that

there are issues or problems, then we will assign staff at the national level and regional level to oversee to make sure that we get

on course. But keep in mind, these partnerships are driven by business, industry, by data that is generated from the local and regional area. So it isn’t driven down by the Federal Government. It

actually is coming up from the bottom where we find that there is

a need to build jobs, there is a lack of training or skills. But it is

all market-driven.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Solis follows:]
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

Chairman ISSA. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Secretary Poneman.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL PONEMAN

Mr. PONEMAN. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and

distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department of Energy’s program to strengthen our energy security, to advance clean

energy innovation, to create jobs for the American people and to

make the United States more competitive in the global economy.

Since unlike Secretary Solis, I am not yet known to the committee, I will allow myself a brief introduction. I have spent over

35 years working in the national security arena, including 6 years

working for President George Herbert Walker Bush and President

Bill Clinton at the National Security Council. I spent a number of

years in the private sector as well, before returning to public service in 2009 at the Department of Energy. Worldwide, between $5 and $10 trillion are spent on energy

every year. This is an enormous market that is expected to increase dramatically in the coming years as developing countries

like China and India continue to grow.

Countries around the world are already moving aggressively to

develop and deploy the clean energy technologies that will be needed to meet the growing global demand. Just last year, global clean

energy investments reached $243 billion, an increase of 50 percent

from 2009. And the pace of growth shows no sign of slowing.

There is a significant economic and employment opportunity to

be seized by the companies and the countries that successfully innovate and compete in these clean energy industries. This is a race.

It is a race to develop the technologies and the domestic manufacturing capacity that will drive job creation and set a foundation for

the future prosperity of the United States.

Our competitors are stepping up, and they are playing to win.

The United States once led the world in clean energy investments.

Now we rank third, behind China and Germany. So we have a

choice to make today. We can compete in the global marketplace,

creating American jobs and selling American products, or we can

resign ourselves to importing the technologies of tomorrow from

abroad.

I believe that we can and must compete. That is why, under

President Obama’s leadership, we have taken unprecedented steps

to deploy American innovation and to make sure that the United

States is a leader in the global energy economy of the future.

Through our investments in clean energy, we are creating hundreds of thousands of new clean energy jobs and catalyzing investments by the private sector, while reducing our excessive dependence on energy imports and saving money for families and businesses across the country.

This is a race that we can win. But we must recognize that it

is not a race that can be won overnight. It is going to take a sustained commitment to build a competitive clean energy industry in

America, especially as our companies are forced to compete against

foreign competitors like China that are providing their companies

with significant State support. To meet this challenge, we have fo-
54

cused our investments in three main areas. First, advancing innovation through research and development; second, expanding

American manufacturing capacity; and third, enabling the deployment of innovative, clean energy technologies at commercial scale

when private financing is not widely available.

These efforts will continue to be essential in growing our economy, moving private capital off the sidelines and expanding new industries in the United States. They have helped to put hundreds

of thousands of Americans back to work.

Even as we face difficult budget choices, the Government can and

should continue to play a role in supporting American companies

and helping them to compete globally. American jobs today and in

the decades to come depend on it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poneman follows:]
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

Mr. CHAFFETZ [presiding]. Thank you.

Dr. Hall, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KEITH HALL

Dr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am

pleased to be here today to provide a summary of activities underway in the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure employment in

green jobs. BLS is, as you know, an independent statistical agency

that is the principal Federal source for information on employment

and unemployment, inflation, wages and benefits, worker safety

and productivity. Our mission is to provide relevant, accurate,

timely and objective statistical data to help inform policymakers

and the public.

All of our data products, including the upcoming green jobs data,

meet these high standards. To protect our impartiality and independence, we take no role in policymaking and do not conduct policy analysis ourselves.

BLS received funding beginning in the fiscal year 2010 to develop and implement the collection of new data on green jobs. The

goal of the BLS green jobs initiative is to develop information on

the number of and trend over time in green jobs, the industrial, occupational and geographic distribution of the jobs, and wages of

workers in these jobs.

To measure green jobs, BLS first had to develop and objective,

measurable definition. BLS began by reviewing work done by other

national statistical agencies, such as Statistics Canada and

EuroStat, as well as work done by various State labor market information offices and by non-profit organizations. Looking at these

studies, BLS found the common thread running through the various definitions is green jobs help to preserve or restore the environment or conserve natural resources.

BLS engaged in extensive outreach and consultation with other

Federal agencies with expertise in various aspects of the jobs and

then published a draft green jobs definition in the March 2010 Federal Register notice. BLS received about 150 comments on this proposed definition, as well as additional feedback from Federal stakeholders, including the Departments of Energy, the Environmental

Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality and

an interagency discussion organized by the Office of Management

and Budget in April 2010.

In a September 21, 2010 Federal Register notice, BLS announced

its final definition of green jobs for the purposes of statistical data

collection. Under this definition, there are two different types of

jobs that qualify as green jobs. First are jobs and business establishments that produce goods or services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. BLS refers to these as green

goods and services jobs.

The second is jobs in which the work performed makes the production process of business establishments more environmentally

friendly or use fewer natural resources. BLS refers to these as

green technologies and practices jobs.

The first step for BLS in measuring green jobs and services was

to identify sectors and industries within which goods and services

that directly benefit the environment are produced. In total, BLS
69

identified over 300 detailed industries as well as defined by the

North American Industry Classification System where green goods

and services are produced. Some examples are the utility sector,

which produces electricity from renewable Resources, the manufacturing sector, which produces Energy Star certified appliances, the

agriculture sector, which produces organic crops, the construction

sector, which provides weatherization services and the professional

and business sector, which provides environmental consulting services.

The next step for BLS currently underway is to conduct a green

goods and services survey to identify the proportion of each industry that is engaged in producing green goods and services. This

survey was sent out in May 2011 to a sample of 120,000 business

establishments in the industries identified as producing green

goods and services. The survey presents these business establishments with a description of green products or services classified in

their respective industries and asks respondents to estimate the

share of establishment revenue accounted for by green outputs.

Based on the survey, BLS will produce data on green goods and

services employment for the United States by industry and for

States by industry sector. The first estimates will be available in

early 2012.

To measure green technology and practices jobs, BLS is conducting a special employer data survey collection called the Green

Technologies and Practices Survey. Businesses in any industry that

may use green technologies and practices, regardless of the nature

or ‘‘greenness’’ of their outputs, are potentially included. Therefore,

the Green Technologies and Practices Survey will be sent to a sample of about 35,000 business establishments selected from all U.S.

industry sectors. Respondents will again be presented with descriptions of various types of Technologies or practices that benefit the

environment or conserve resources and asked to indicate which, if

any, are utilized by the establishment. We should have estimates

on that survey by mid-2012.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hall follows:]
70
71
72
73
74
75

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Appreciate that.

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.

Mr. Poneman, starting with you, would you consider

hydroelectricity as a renewable energy source?

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we have a continuous flow of water and absolutely, it keeps flowing.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So would that fit, potentially, the definition of

what a green job would be, or be in that category of green jobs?

Mr. PONEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I defer to my distinguished colleague who has done more etymological study of how we define

green jobs. But certainly in terms of low carbon renewable resource, hydroelectric fits right in the pocket.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Dr. Hall, would that fit your definition?

Dr. HALL. Yes, it would. One of our categories of green goods is

energy from renewable resources.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And you would consider hydroelectric power as

renewable?

Dr. HALL. Yes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Secretary, would you consider

hydroelectricity as renewable?

Secretary SOLIS. Yes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. One of the frustrations and questions is this idea

that it has created, as you said, Mr. Poneman, ‘‘hundreds of thousands of new jobs.’’ I have a difficult time seeing that. A, we don’t

have a definition of what that is. So how do we come to this conclusion? I ask that rhetorically, as a follow-up. But I think one of the

difficulties, at least you see for myself, is this claim, this exorbitant

claim of hundreds of thousands of jobs, yet there is not even a definition of what those jobs are going to be.

If we had the Department of Interior here, they would take great

exception to the idea that hydroelectricity is renewable. To me, I

come to the same conclusion as you do, I think it is renewable. But

it is one of the challenges and we do need to straighten it out. The

administration is on very dramatically different pages on this. And

it affects the States, particularly out west, who have a lot of these

resources.

Madam Secretary, I would like to go through this, and I am looking at your written statement here. You picked various items out

for your verbal comments.

In the Recovery Act, on page 3, it says that there was $500 million for competitive grants. And then as you picked out some of the

statistics, on page 4, paragraph 3, talking about the 52,000 people

have participated in the Recovery Act, I want to make sure I am

doing my math right. I am skipping down to the bottom there, it

says approximately 15,000 of those individuals did not have jobs

upon program entry. Of those individuals without a job when they

started the program, 52 percent have found work with 83 percent

of those individuals obtaining employment in the same industry or

occupation in which they were trained.

That number, as best I can calculate, comes out to 6,225. We congratulate and we are happy for them and their families. One of my

concerns is, if we are spending $500 million to get people trained,

and the conclusion is 6,200 people, that is roughly $80,000 per person.
76

Secretary SOLIS. Actually, if I could respond, Mr. Chairman,

what I would want to remind you is that our programs are intended to train individuals, incumbent workers, those that are currently on the job, as well as assisting those that have been unemployed, displaced. So think about the automobile worker who just

lost their job, now does not have any ability to find transition into

something else similar. So we will attract them, get them into programs that will, precisely for this reason, look at new techniques

that they could engage in through our training programs. And

maybe now will be involved in hybrid automobile development. And

many have made that transition.

So there is that, how could I say, ability for individuals to make

that transition. It is a little more clear; in other industries, it is a

lot harder. I will tell you again, though, our funding is for training.

And based on——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Was I inaccurate, I am sorry to interrupt, but was

I inaccurate in my numbers in the assessment? We are talking

about $80,000 per person.

Secretary SOLIS. I think that is actually a little higher. We look

at it more as someone who is enrolling in a community college. The

training program typically runs that amount.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But I wonder if you can actually document that

it actually went out and found a job. It didn’t create any jobs. It

trained them, and you can argue the validity of needing to do that.

Secretary SOLIS. It trained people to also keep those jobs, because many employers are actually laying people off if they didn’t

have higher credentials, because they wanted to remain competitive. So that is a part of our program that we are offering.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I have just a few seconds here. In your written

testimony you talked about a Clearfield Job Corps, wonderful organization, based in my State, outside of my district. But one of the

things in your written testimony is saying that the 14 students recently graduated from green training programs, including renewable resources, obviously that sounds green, overhead line construction and advanced automotive. Those don’t sound quite as green as

maybe we would be led to believe. If you could help me understand

why that would be categorized as green, I would appreciate it.

My time is expired, and I yield back. Actually, now I recognize

the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Were you going to answer that question, Dr.

Hall, the question he just asked? Could somebody answer that

question? I think it is a good question.

Secretary SOLIS. I would say that many of our training programs

provide a variety of services. So while not all these programs received, how could I say, more than 50 percent of the money that

they get is not all dedicated to just green. What is happening,

though, all our programs, Youth Build and Job Corps, have been

told to change their curriculum. So we have students that are enrolled in programs to be, say, automobile mechanics or diesel mechanics. And they are learning new technology. In many cases,

they are using new refined fuels, things of that nature.

So yes, they are learning some of that new aptitude. But across

the board, I would say many of the programs continue to provide

somewhat traditional training. But we are emphasizing, and keep
77

in mind we have only had this program in place now for less than

21⁄2 years. So we are making that transition, and we want to do

better, we want to make sure that our young people, especially, get

that upgraded skill set that they are going to need to make them

more competitive.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I will now recognize the gentleman

from Maryland.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Secretary, are we training people to get into careers? Is

that part of it? I am just curious. I know there are people in my

district that were able to take advantage of some training programs, so that they established a career, so that they weren’t laid

off. And maybe they were in a job, and that job, in other words,

in this economy we are having a lot of employers who have learned

to do more with less people. Could you just comment very briefly,

because I have a number of questions?

Secretary SOLIS. Congressman Cummings, what we see is that

many of our students, for example, those that are here today, in

the Job Corps and Youth Build program, receive several different

credentials and certificates. So they are being trained for a career

and a profession as opposed to just one job as someone who is just,

say, a bricklayer. They are actually taught different kinds of segments of the construction industry, which includes renewable. And

also electricity, you get a whole set of different credentials that you

can earn while you are in that program.

Mr. CUMMINGS. On July 13th, the Brookings Institution issued a

major study providing the first comprehensive analysis of the U.S.

green economy. I am going to ask unanimous consent to put the

Brookings report into the record.

Chairman ISSA [presiding]. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]
78
79

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you.

This report made a number of findings, and I would like to focus

on two. First, the report found that the clean economy generates

good-paying jobs. According to the report, the clean economy employs some 2.7 million workers more than the fossil fuel industry.

The report also goes on to say, newer, clean tech segments produce

explosive job gains. And the clean economy outperformed the Nation during the recession. Newer clean economy establishments, especially those in young energy related segments, such as wind energy, solar and smart grid, added jobs to the base, albeit it from

small bases.

Madam Secretary, do you agree with the Brookings report that

certain segments of the clean economy offer the potential for explosive job growth? And do the other panelists agree? And I want to

go back to what the chairman was saying, and it was implied by

Congressman Chaffetz, too, that your numbers aren’t accurate. I

need you to address that. Is that a fair statement?

Chairman ISSA. I think it is very fair to say that we think it is

completely——

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to make sure that they address that. Because you have been accused of something here, and I want you to

clear it up. I think that is going to be part of the basis of this hearing, and what those folks over there are writing about.

Secretary SOLIS. Right. Congressman, I want to reiterate that

through our Recovery Act programs, our job training programs, we

have already trained 52,000. The initial grants are——

Mr. CUMMINGS. And that is a fact?

Secretary SOLIS. Yes. And we potentially, in the next coming

year and a half, possibly, we will see up to 96,000 that will be targeted. So they will go through our credential programs.

At this point in time, as of June 30, 2011, 26,000 workers have

completed training, and about 15,000 who were unemployed workers and 11,000 who were what we call incumbent workers, so they

had job, but were being trained in our programs as well, and over

22,000 have received a credential.

And I would say that approximately half of that 15,000 or so did

get new jobs. We are tracking that as we continually roll along

here. What we are finding is the average cost to provide the training averages, again, about the cost it would be to attend a community college.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The Brookings report also made a second key

point, which is that the United States needs to support these key

sectors to remain competitive. Here is what the report says. China

now leads the world in clean economy deployment. In 2010, China

put into place a staggering $54.4 billion in clean energy investments. By contrast U.S. private investment in clean energy totaled

$34 billion.

Now the gap has widened further. The Brookings report also

says this, China, which now produces half of the world’s wind turbine and solar modules, recently announced it would accelerate its

clean revolution over the next 5 years and has set out aggressive

growth plans for strategic, emerging, industrial, critical industries,

critical to economic restructuring, including multiple new energy

categories, electric vehicles and energy efficient products.
80

Do you have a comment on that?

Secretary SOLIS. Mr. Cummings, I would just say that you can’t compare $54 billion of investments from China as opposed to $500

million that I had for the first time in the Recovery Act. And my

role is to provide training and skill assistance. It is not to find a

job. That is why venture capitalists, that is why corporations, that

is why business individuals make those decisions. They are actually making the risk to increase our capacity to go in the green sector.

I would say that, just to remind folks, back in 2007, George Bush

signed into law the Green Jobs Act program. He believed in it, as

well, as well as many people that have been invested in this area

for now more than a decade. I would just say it is something that

we are obviously needing more assistance, more support. If we can

compete with our friends in other countries, I think in the future

it will bode very well for us.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

I now recognize myself. Madam Secretary, I am going to be brief. It is only $500 million, which in Washington is small dollars. Our

point, I think accurately, Mr. Chaffetz made it well, and I am just

going to summarize it, you spent $500 million, you spent a lot of

it on people who already had jobs. Of the people who didn’t have

jobs, you have about 6,000 who got jobs, at least as of today. And

those jobs include people who are basically just working on modern

diesel trucks and other things, which are—no, you said it yourself

in your own testimony, it is broad training.

So the statistics of the 6,200 or so who actually got jobs who

didn’t have jobs can well be on the periphery of what most people

would consider to be green jobs. As a matter of fact, if they left that

training and came to work for Mr. Cummings and they are here

on the hearing today, they probably will end up being counted as

green jobs.

Which means I go to Dr. Hall. Dr. Hall, you have the big bucks.

Was Solyndra and their 1,000 jobs counted in your assessment, I

mean until they went bankrupt and laid everyone off?

Dr. HALL. Well, what will——

Chairman ISSA. No, that is a yes or no, if you don’t mind.

Dr. HALL. Okay. I don’t know.

Chairman ISSA. That is the third answer, and it is always a good

one, if you don’t.

Your counting of these jobs, though, clearly includes people who

are not in fact designing and building solar panels or doing other

things which are truly green energy production, correct? It goes

well beyond green energy production. Your figures include people

who are working in the environmental, how to be kinder to the environment, that is in the written proof we have here, correct?

Dr. HALL. Yes, one of our categories that we are collecting data

is environmental compliance education and training and public

awareness.

Chairman ISSA. Okay, so as the Government creates, just a bit

more bureaucracy that forces more people to have to do more EPA

compliance and studies and wasteful, sometimes, restudying, that

all counts as green, right? So if the Government simply infinitely
81

burdens business so they have to get a whole bunch more people

to do a lot more studying to keep the Government happy, that

counts as green jobs, correct?

Dr. HALL. Well, one of our surveys is the green technology and

practices survey. So we are looking at establishments——

Chairman ISSA. But we are looking at the accuracy of your numbers here today. We already have the proof that it costs a fortune

to get very few jobs. Now we look at those jobs and find out that

those jobs are broadly defined, so that you have a lot less real jobs

created than even the pitiful numbers that it is showing. Now,

when people want to tell me there is 2.5 million, one of the problems is, yes, you get more money for working in green subsidized

industry. You get more, and there are more people.

But you know, the cost of producing electricity from solar electrics is so inefficient and expensive that you subsidize the production, you subsidize the development and then you subsidize the

use. So what a surprise, you can afford to pay 13 percent more.

Let me just ask Mr. Poneman, Secretary Poneman, because you

are the closest thing to somebody who has been in private enterprise here. China is doing all the things Mr. Cummings said. But

they are not using green energy to do it. They are building more

coal plants and buying more American coal than any other customer. The number one exporter of coal to China is us. The number

one importer of coal in the world is China from us.

So they are building windmills so we can subsidize them and buy

them. They are building solar panels so we can subsidize and buy

them. They are using low cost energy to be more competitive in

selling us high cost energy. Isn’t that basically the model at least

as of today?

Mr. PONEMAN. I would not presume to speak for the Chinese

model, Mr. Chairman. But for——

Chairman ISSA. But you do know, it is not a secret, they are

using coal-fired and nuclear to produce all that green stuff. They

are not using solar panels to make solar panels.

Mr. PONEMAN. They are now the world’s leading producer of

solar panels and——

Chairman ISSA. Producer, seller and exporter, correct?

Mr. PONEMAN. As far as I know, sir, yes.

Chairman ISSA. Okay, so they are a great manufacturing nation.

Mr. PONEMAN. Right.

Chairman ISSA. They are the number one manufacturing nation

in the world. They took that from us while we were diddling

around having higher costs of energy and bragging about the fact

that if you have an inefficient form of energy rising, such as solar

panels, for pure energy, and there are some places in which solar

panels make a lot of sense. But in fact as a mainstream energy

source, what we are doing is raising the cost of our energy while

China is becoming, has become, the world’s greatest manufacturer

out from underneath us.

Mr. PONEMAN. I can speak to the U.S. side. What we are doing,

Mr. Chairman, is we believe we can reverse that trend.

Chairman ISSA. You are going to reverse it with higher cost energy?
82

Mr. PONEMAN. No, no. We are going to reverse it with innovation, with the financial markets we have, with the best entrepreneurs in the world. And we are in the process of doing it, sir.

Chairman ISSA. It is amazing to me that you would say the financial markets. Mr. Cummings would probably be rather upset if

you said our great financial markets after the hearings we have

held since 2008. My time is expiring. This hearing is about the accounting for jobs. And hopefully as we go through this, both sides

will focus on the jobs that are in fact not created, or in fact are only

created through subsidies.

With that, I recognize the gentlelady from the District of Columbia.

Mr. PONEMAN. Might I just respond to the last comment?

Chairman ISSA. No, there wasn’t a question. Thank you.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and this is about the accounting for jobs. And this is a very important subject, because this is

the next iteration of the world economy. You don’t get anywhere if

you have already drawn your conclusions with a title that says how

Obama’s green jobs agenda is killing jobs. We want to know, we

want ot find out the answers. This is supposed to be an investigative committee.

When it comes to government investment and innovation, let’s

not pretend that that is new. That is as old as the American economy. The rail was laid before there were trains and people enough

to go there, because of government investment. So that is something we have done, laid to your part of the country, Mr. Chairman, when there were very few people out there like yourself.

You say in your testimony, at page 3, there are certain things

that the private sector cannot reasonably be expected to do in a

market economy, including undertaking investments in clean energy, etc., that primarily confer national benefits beyond the return

to shareholders. That was the case with the rail industry, that obviously is the case with this new technology. The old industrial

economy is now limited in its growth.

So let’s look, since many in this committee already know the answer, let’s look to a genuine investigation. The Economic Policy Institute issued its report that concluded that the Recovery Act’s investments at approximately $93 billion through the end of 2010

boosted overall GDP by $146 billion and created nearly one million

jobs.

Now, I recognize that China is a command economy, we are a

market economy. And when we invest, it is a little more difficult

than when they do. But they are underwriting billions of dollars in

green technologies, trying to get out of the old coal economy that

they are using. Because they have nothing else they can use.

Is China also killing jobs by making such massive investments?

Or are they cornering the market in these new clean technologies?

Mr. Poneman?

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. It

is a great danger that this great race that we are embarking on

to build the energy of the future will not be built in America. What

the investments we are trying to make are doing are trying to reverse that trend. In 1996, we produced 43 percent of the world’s
83

solar panels. We now produce 6 percent. We can reverse that with

the kind of smart investments that we are trying to make under

the Recovery Act and under the authorities that have been granted

by this Congress.

I want to be clear for the record that China is in fact using domestic solar as well as all the coal and nuclear. The fact of the

matter is, they are using tremendous amounts of all kinds of energy and I think it would be a tragedy if we were to cede the playing field to our foreign competition in building the jobs for the future that should be here in America.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, precisely, because these are new and shareholders want to see a return on their investment. Private industry

has never gone whole hog in leading the country. It has always

been the other way around. What is the experience of other governments around the world in pursuing the green jobs agenda? Are

they trying to corner the market as well and get ahead of us?

Mr. PONEMAN. The governments that have been most active,

Congresswoman, are the governments putting the largest dollar investments in. We have now slipped to third place in the world. We

lost a place in just a year. We have been behind China. Now Germany has surged ahead of us.

We can reverse this, but we are going to have to be really focused

on moving capital into these new clean energy technologies.

Ms. NORTON. Can either of you say that what you have seen of

green jobs has done more to kill it than to make or encourage

green jobs in our country?

Secretary SOLIS. Madam Congresswoman, I would just say on my

visits around the country, I have actually seen job growth. And in

areas where I have seen depressed and blighted communities come

back to life, because now there are solar panel institutes, organizations that are actually compiling these kinds of materials and actually making production and creating jobs in areas that have been

blighted. Not just that, but also in lithium batteries and also other

new hybrid vehicles, even our automobile industry has been renewed. We have more jobs now in that area, and a potential for

more cars that are going to be fuel efficient.

So I do see that happening. But we can’t compete with China and

others when government, state-owned funds are being used and

you are looking at small portions being utilized for training. Just

to go back to the statement that the chairman said, our funding

runs in cycles. So you can’t produce a great number of job training

participants in a matter of 1 year. It takes a cycle. You have to

ginny up 6 months, then you get people into the training, the curriculum, you get the location. And these grants run anywhere from

2 to 3 years.

So we are barely in the mid-point of our cycle. We expect to go

up to 96,000 participants.

Chairman ISSA. We now recognize the gentlelady from New York,

Ms. Buerkle, for her questions.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling

this very important hearing, and thank you to our panelists this

morning for being here.

I just want to take exception, the chairman was, this line of

questioning on coal. I think it is slightly disingenuous for you all
84

to sit there and compare China as being the standard bearer for

alternative energy and production of solar panels when in fact we

have had people here from the coal industry, and we have heard

first-hand the obstacles that are being put in their way for the production of coal.

So we can’t compare apples to oranges. We in this country are

impeding the use of coal production and the use of coal, and in

China, they don’t have those standards. Those impediments are not

put in the way of them and the use of coal. And they are using it

then to produce these solar panels, which they can produce much

more cheaply, as we have seen in Solyndra. So that is just a comment I wanted to make.

I think it is very important to acknowledge, number one, when

we talk about the fact that China and these other governments are

infusing money into the industry, this is the United States of

America. And we let the free market rule. It isn’t a question of

what the government can prop up. I think that is a real important

distinction we should make here this morning.

Now I will get to my questions. Thank you. Secretary Solis, can

you just give me your definition of a green job?

Secretary SOLIS. I believe that the Bureau of Labor Statistics

outlined what we have been using as a guide for our program. So

we look at opportunities where we can define through legislation

what has been used typically as a green job. So something that conserves energy and also can recycle and also renew, renewable energy, something that is going to reduce our savings in terms of our

efficiencies there.

So we use that, we use what the BLS and what other data is out

there. Typically we have also used what the Workforce Investment

Act research guidelines have provided us, even before we began to

take on this role of defining what green jobs are.

Ms. BUERKLE. Do you have one specific definition of a green job?

Secretary SOLIS. I would say that what we look at in terms of

our definition is exactly what the Bureau of Labor Statistics has

outlined. So it is very large, we know it is broad, and we know that

there are different sectors across the board that are impacted. So

yes, you could have a business that is involved in providing maybe

renewable energy, but you also have accountants and other individuals, financial folks that are also a part of that industry.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you.

I want to just get into some of your testimony and what you have

talked about here today. The certificates, or the credentialing that

is given to a student who completes the program, how long is the

program?

Secretary SOLIS. The programs vary. We have programs that can

run in length from say 6 weeks, 6 months to 1 year, depending on

the kind of credential that you are seeking. And in many cases, for

example, we have students here in the Job Corps program, they

are enrolled typically in the program anywhere from 1 year to 2

years.

During that timeframe, they can select which certificates they

would like to be enrolled in to obtain that particular degree or certificate.
85

Ms. BUERKLE. And that certificate or that credential, is it recognized in the industry? Is it recognized by unions?

Secretary SOLIS. Yes.

Ms. BUERKLE. Who recognizes it and what is it called?

Secretary SOLIS. There are standards that are established, and

we go by what has already been established through our department. And typically, in the apprenticeship program, for example,

we have new definitions, new criteria that is actually being set up

that I believe the BLS could probably elaborate a little bit more on

in terms of looking into new industries like wind power, solar and

other areas that are now becoming more of our vocabulary.

Ms. BUERKLE. I also want to follow up with some of your testimony with regard to the wages that a green trainee is paid versus

a regular trainee. Can you just, what is the starting wage for a

green trainee?

Secretary SOLIS. It depends. You could have someone who is

working, say, at minimum wage, and typically move up because of

certificates, say, in LED, lighting and what have you. Those are,

I think, one of the highest standards right now. If you can get

those certificates, you actually will make a lot more money. And

those salaries are obviously a lot higher than minimum wage.

Ms. BUERKLE. Do you know what the average starting salary is

for one of these green trainees?

Secretary SOLIS. It depends on what field you go in, weatherization can be very different from someone who is also doing, say, installation of solar power panels, and also re-metering someone’s

home and putting them into a new electricity grid system. But I

would tell you that overall, and according to the Brookings findings

that I referred to, that the salaries are anywhere from say, 10 to

13 percent higher.

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. I see I am out of time. I yield back,

and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentlelady. Thank you.

We now recognize the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio, Mr.

Kucinich, for 5 minutes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to address my questions to Mr. Poneman. Because

they also may relate to some information that Secretary Solis has,

if you would like to join in, you can tell me.

The main purpose of this committee is to be able to get the facts.

And I just want to make sure I have my facts correct here. The

loan guarantee to Solyndra was approved under a Bush administration program, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is that correct?

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. According to the September 14th testimony of

Jonathan Silver, who is the current head at the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program, one, the Solyndra application was

filed with the Bush administration in 2006; two, 2 years of extensive due diligence had been done by the Bush administration before

President Obama took office; and three, before President Obama

took office in late January 2009, the Bush administration had already set a time-line of March 2009 for issuing a conditional loan

guarantee commitment to Solyndra. Is this factual so far?
86

Mr. PONEMAN. I was not here yet, but that is my understanding,

sir, yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Okay, and when the Department of Energy conditionally approved the Solyndra loan guarantee in March 2009, it

was doing so under a schedule established by the Bush administration, is that correct?

Mr. PONEMAN. That is my understanding.

Mr. KUCINICH. And when Solyndra met those conditions, it was

the closing of the deal that occurred in September 2009, the closing

of the conditional loan guarantee commitment that had been scheduled by the Bush administration, they scheduled it for March 2009,

for the closing?

Mr. PONEMAN. My understanding, Congressman, is that the credit committee remanded the project for more work, and that they expected that more work would produce the answers that were then

reviewed in March.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you. Now, the Department of Energy has

approved dozens of other loan guarantees under this program, is

that correct?

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. And there is another solar energy company, First

Solar, that has received a number of those loan guarantees, is that

correct?

Mr. PONEMAN. We are in the process of conditional commitments

moving to financial close, First Solar has been in that pool, and I

don’t know which of the applications have gone to final close and

which are conditional.

Mr. KUCINICH. But in fact, the loan guarantees that First Solar

has received or is expected to receive by the September 30th deadline total approximately 10 times the amount that was guaranteed

for Solyndra, is that correct?

Mr. PONEMAN. I would have to check and get the precise numbers for you, but that is easily done.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would you get those for the members of the committee?

Mr. PONEMAN. Absolutely.

Mr. KUCINICH. Because according to a September 19th article in

the Bloomberg News Service, First Solar, a company based in

Tempe, Arizona, has ‘‘achieved record efficiency for a thin film

solar cell, and will incorporate the advance into its manufacturing

technology next quarter to outpace cost reductions by Chinese rivals and compete against fossil fuels without government aid.’’

It seems to me this would be consistent with what the Bush administration Energy Policy Act of 2005 was intended to accomplish.

Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. PONEMAN. I would just say, sir, that scale is incredibly important in driving down solar panel prices. And so to the extent

that they can build out at a much larger scale, it would have a

tendency to drive down those prices and improve our competitiveness, yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. My staff just handed me some facts here about

the First Solar loan guarantee amount, and I have First Solar, Inc.,

$680 million, First Solar, Inc., this is called Desert Sunlight, $1.8

billion, First Solar, Inc., Topaz Solar Generation, $1.9 billion. Just
87

wanted to make sure that we understand that while the rest of the

world looks to the future and prepares for it by ramping up dramatically its green sector, we are busy holding hearings like this,

which end up impugning the President’s expensive economy.

Anyone who has listened to me for more than 15 seconds knows

that I am probably the last Democrat who is an apologist for this

administration. But this thing is really about our economy and this

is about need and this is about the urgency. That should command

our attention here above all else. I think that we actually have bipartisan support, judging from the record, for green energy programs. That is part of the path to the future to move the American

economy.

So as we move through this hearing, I hope that we can summon

the same kind of energy to focus on how we can create millions of

jobs with green and wind, solar, micro technologies, put America

back to work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Chairman ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich.

We now go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg.

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions.

I just can’t let the statement that was put out earlier that we can

never count on private sector manufacturing to lead the way in

technology and growth. That is just unbelievable, in a country that

has had the agricultural, industrial revolution, technological revolution, here. And that did not come from government. Henry Ford,

in Michigan, down the road from me and my district, didn’t

produce the assembly line with the government mandating that, or

even giving special money for it at the time.

So that is frustrating to hear, Mr. Chairman, as we talk about

these green jobs.

I would like to do a followup question to Commissioner Hall. Do

you count blue collar jobs?

Dr. HALL. Sure. We don’t make any distinction between what

kind of jobs.

Mr. WALBERG. You don’t count white collar jobs then?

Dr. HALL. We count all the jobs. If an establishment is producing

a green output, a green good or service, we count all the jobs in

that establishment.

Mr. WALBERG. So then as we talk about green collar jobs today,

what is the point of counting green jobs, or even making that metric? Why are we giving official legitimacy to such a dubious metric?

Dr. HALL. We do make an effort, we do make an effort in our second survey, our Green Technology and Practices survey, also they

are trying to count, people have jobs whose main job is green. So

we have a green—we will capture some of that.

Mr. WALBERG. You may capture that, but it seems to me we

want jobs. And attentiveness to green seems to be frustrating some

of that.

Let me ask Secretary Solis, and thank you for being here. How

much of the green jobs training money has gone to organized labor

since 2009?

Secretary SOLIS. All of our grants have allowed for union participation. So if we had partnerships with businesses as well as labor,
88

they were also involved in that. So the purpose here is to create

the opportunities for the slots, as I said, so that we could train people.

Mr. WALBERG. Do we know how much money has gone to labor

for green jobs since 2009?

Secretary SOLIS. Well, I would say, depending on the different

programs, because not all of them were just exclusively labor, I

mean, that is not a number that I have.

Mr. WALBERG. Do we know the percentage increased or decreased over time of green jobs going to labor?

Secretary SOLIS. Green job participation comes about because of

the partners that apply for the grants. So you could have, for example, IBEW, for example, who did get a grant in partnership with

the industry. And if you were to look at who is being trained, they

could have been union members that were taking advantage and

getting upgrades, or new individuals coming in. But they were

working in partnership with the corporate community, the management side of it, that actually provides also for the additional training and scale.

Mr. WALBERG. Is there any evidence that these particular organizations, labor organizations, have expertise in training people in

green jobs?

Secretary SOLIS. Absolutely. IBEW is one of the premier apprenticeship programs and groups that actually provides very, very

good credentialed programs. They actually have been the leaders,

even before we gave them funding for these programs.

Mr. WALBERG. I would love to see the percentage, then, since

2009, of green jobs, training programs going to labor.

Secretary SOLIS. Where we have had labor participation?

Mr. WALBERG. Labor participation.

Secretary SOLIS. Because they are joint. They are joint. They are

not exclusively for labor, they are joint.

Mr. WALBERG. Do the best you can, and I would appreciate seeing that.

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you.

Mr. WALBERG. Just had the largest contact of information that

I have ever had about rare earth. And I turn to Mr. Poneman for

this. China produces nearly 90 percent of the world’s rarest earth

metals, many of which are used in green technology, such as wind

turbines, hybrid car batteries and so forth. Recent Chinese policies

have restricted access to these resources for American companies.

How can American green companies obtain these necessary rare

earth metals to manufacture in green technologies with that going

on?

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, Congressman. I just want to make

one comment to be clear. I am not sure what the reference was to,

but we believe that the free market of the United States of America

is the most powerful engine of economic growth the world has yet

seen. So I want to make sure we are clear, we think it is a tremendous driver.

Mr. WALBERG. I appreciate that.

Mr. PONEMAN. On rare earths, this is a critical problem. We have

looked at this deeply, and we have to do a number of things. Number one, we have to see where we can get production up in other
89

places outside of China. Number two, we have to look at things

that can be done in the processing of these rare earths, which

sometimes have toxic issues, to make sure that we can use our

technology to get access to them cleanly and safely. And third, we

have to see if there are ways in which there are places where so

far they are intrinsic to the product if we need to start finding alternatives to those rare earths.

Mr. WALBERG. But we are losing market share, we are losing opportunity for jobs by delaying this activity, when in fact we are

using them in our products, up until China holding us back. With

that, my time is expired. I appreciate your comments.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cooper, for 5

minutes.

Mr. COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You and I both know that the Chinese are watching this hearing.

They are probably pleased. What they are seeing is more partisan

bickering. Now, we don’t know if the Chinese bicker, because they

make their decisions in private.

We are also seeing, I think, a false conflict between fossil fuels

and renewable fuels. And that suits certain partisan motivations at

this time in our democracy.

I think most Americans are for the lowest cost fuel, period, including externalities. So far in this hearing, no one has made reference to the fact that you can barely breathe the air in Beijing,

China, and other major cities. You can cut it with a knife.

I am from coal country, I love coal. I want it to work. But we

have also created a false sense that coal is the unsubsidized fuel.

Mr. Chairman, you and I both know that coal has been subsidized

for decades. In my area, clean coal has been subsidized for decades.

I wish some of those efforts had been more productive, because it

is hard to clean up coal. Maybe it is still possible. I haven’t given

up trying.

But we are blessed with vast coal reserves. But it is hard to

clean up that fuel.

Now, global warming may be more controversial on your side.

Most scientists agree that global warming is happening, and may

even have a man-made cause. So carbon-based fuels, that is an externality.

So Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out in an earlier letter on behalf of a constituent, and I by no means blame you for those efforts,

it is very important that we don’t create false conflicts between

fuels, and that we make rational decisions about the best way to

go. It has been established by testimony here today that the Chinese vastly subsidize renewables, more than we do by five or ten

fold or larger, because we don’t really know the Chinese numbers.

Now the Germans are subsidizing it more than we are. Now, I

would prefer the free market work entirely on its own. That would

be great. We in Tennessee are blessed because a company called

Hemlock, a private sector, American company, a subsidiary of Dow

Chemical Co., not a dewy-eyed idealist in this field, has located

thousands of green jobs in Tennessee. And I hope that Dr. Hall is

counting those jobs. Volcker, the leading German producer of solar

panels, has also created thousands of green jobs in Tennessee. And
90

no one is ever quite sure why they located in the State, but perhaps the lack of a State income tax in Tennessee had something

to do with it. And those States that want those green jobs, maybe

they can have a more efficient State government and attract more

industries.

So there are some real opportunities here, Mr. Chairman, to help

America have more energy choices, help us pick the lowest cost

choices, including the externalities. Because nobody wants to live

in a polluted, dirty air environment. No one wants to ruin the planet. And experimental Technologies take time, they take effort. And

I don’t know the stats, because they are not included in this hearing, but coal may have been one of the most subsidized fuels ever,

if you look at the decades that we have spent subsidizing clean coal

technology.

So let’s do our best to try to make rational decisions for the country. Hopefully we can get back on the right path. I think that

again, one of the worst parts of hearings like this is that the Chinese see us fighting, they see the partisanship and they say, hey,

maybe state capitalism, their version, is working better than our

version. And that should please them. We have to make sure that

democracy works better. And more balanced hearings, I think, can

help us do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. COOPER. I would be delighted to yield to the ranking member.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for his statement, because

I think that you really put a focus on what we need to be focused

on.

But I want to go back to the Secretary. Madam Secretary, you

were talking about training and that you see your role as making

sure that people are trained. As a matter of fact, you said so that

private industry can do its thing.

And thing, Mr. Poneman, I have read your statement and you

specifically say that, you said after all, the fountainhead for innovation and entrepreneurial activity is the private sector, not the

government. I am reading from your written testimony.

So define your role again for us, so we will be clear, as you see

it as labor in this.

Secretary SOLIS. It is to provide assistance, to facilitate the

placement of employment and to make sure that we provide the

necessary skills that industries, employers want. And that is where

the gap seems to be. We are changing from a very heavily manufacturing and industrial society to one that is emerging into a

cleaner, efficient, we are seeing robotics, we are seeing so many

new applications. Technology in and of itself has reformed the way

we do business. You need fewer employees to get things done. That

also has an impact.

But those individuals with more certificates, with more advanced

training in the STEM area are the ones that have lower rates of

employment. So our impetus is to make sure that we can spread

the training and education so that everyone has choices, and not

just a job but a career and a profession.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
91

Chairman ISSA. Thank you.

We now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mack. And

could you yield me 30 seconds?

Mr. MACK. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Poneman, I am going to be very brief. Mr.

Kucinich went on for quite a while, apparently reading off of your

Web site that has a time-line on Solyndra’s loan. Don’t you think

it is disingenuous for that time-line to be quoted, when in fact what

is missing from that time-line is January 13th,when the Bush administration recommended killing that loan, and January 26th,

when the Obama administration brought it back to life and funded

it? Of 2009, in other words, one of the last acts of the Bush administration was to kill Solyndra as not a good idea. One of the first

acts of your administration was to put it back in. And it is not on

the site. Don’t you think that is disingenuous?

Mr. PONEMAN. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think

there is anything disingenuous.

Chairman ISSA. So you will leave out, so that a distinguished

member of this committee can misconstrue what actually happened

and state before this committee without your objecting that basically, this was all a time-line and they would have happened under

Bush? I am sorry, but I don’t have any more time and you don’t

have an answer on that.

Mr. Mack.

Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I want to

show a quick little video.

[Video shown.]

Chairman ISSA. If the gentleman will suspend, can we get that

brought up to full volume before we begin again? I don’t think anyone could have heard Vice President Biden. I apologize, audio and

video is not always as good as it could be here.

[Video shown.]

Mr. MACK. He is saying that is full volume.

[Video shown.]

Mr. MACK. All right, well, since we really can’t hear, basically

what the Vice President has said is that they are going to, this

loan, this company, there was going to be 1,000 permanent jobs. So

Mr. Poneman, are those jobs still permanent?

Mr. PONEMAN. Regrettably, no, Congressman. But I want to be

very clear about one thing.

Mr. MACK. That is okay, let me just—well, go ahead.

Mr. PONEMAN. On January 9th, the credit committee remanded

for further consideration an additional due diligence to the

Solyndra loan, it deferred it without prejudice, explicitly without

prejudice. It did not in fact kill that transaction.

Mr. MACK. Let me say this, then. Considering that when the Vice

President made this announcement in September 2009, the Department of Energy already was worried about Solyndra, was it appropriate for the Vice President to promise that these jobs were permanent? Was it appropriate for that?

Mr. PONEMAN. Congressman, at the time the Vice President

made those statements there was every hope that those jobs would

remain permanent, and we are trying to build a new economy that

will have many more jobs like it.
92

Mr. MACK. Didn’t DOE and OMB have models showing that

Solyndra would run out of money it needed to sustain itself by September 2011?

Mr. PONEMAN. I am going to have to see the specific studies that

you are talking about, Congressman. But as many startups have

challenges, Solyndra obviously was no exception.

Mr. MACK. We will make sure we get those to you.

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. MACK. The record is pretty clear on that.

Secretary Solis, in your prepared testimony, you talked about a

gentleman named Peter Reyes. Who is Peter Reyes?

Secretary SOLIS. Congressman Peter Reyes is an individual that

I met when I was touring a facility, a transportation facility up in

San Jose. He was a worker there who was telling me about his experience. He worked in the banking industry, lost his job after

many years and was trying to get into a new job. He was picked

up by our training programs that we offer in the State of California, in San Jose, and became a part of the production there and

actually is now a driver for one of their hybrid buses. So now he

is making money, he is back at work.

Mr. MACK. Did the U.S. taxpayers pay for that training, for his

training?

Secretary SOLIS. In part, yes. Yes, we did, along with the State.

Mr. MACK. But here is the real question. What makes driving a

hybrid bus a green job and driving another bus that is not a hybrid

bus not a green job? I mean, bear with me here for a minute. Driving a bus is driving a bus, right? You turn the wheel, you push the

gas, you use the brake, you use your blinkers.

Secretary SOLIS. Pardon me but if you go back to the argument

that is being made of how you substantiate the green industry, the

vehicles that were built there are hybrid vehicles. They are fuel efficient. They are built in Oakland, CA. And these bases are being

driven by individuals.

Mr. MACK. Yes, but this is the bus driver. Here is the problem

that I think people are having, that I am having. How can you call

this a green job? If you sit in a chair, if I am sitting in a chair that

was made out of green material, does that make my job green?

Secretary SOLIS. He is in an industry——

Mr. MACK. He is driving a bus, and to count it as a green job,

we have heard on the committee from both sides. We want to be

able to make some determinations here. But before we can make

those determinations, we have to get at whether or not the information that you are giving us is accurate.

Secretary SOLIS. It is accurate.

Mr. MACK. No. Driving a bus, just because it is hybrid, doesn’t

make it a green job.

Secretary SOLIS. Mr. Congressman, would you rather have that

person unemployed?

Mr. MACK. No, I would rather have them working.

Secretary SOLIS. The taxpayers would have to pay for that, he is

now paying taxes.

Mr. MACK. No, I would rather you not try to smooth this thing

over and make it a green job, when it is a job. Of course we want

jobs.
93

Secretary SOLIS. It is an industry that is green.

Mr. MACK. But we don’t want you to pull the wool over the eyes

of the American people——

Secretary SOLIS. I am not.

Mr. MACK [continuing]. And tell them it is a green job when it

is a job. And that is the problem here.

Secretary SOLIS. It is in the green sector.

Mr. MACK. So the administration wants to spend all this money

creating green jobs, but yet you will count things that is a job.

Secretary SOLIS. The industry itself where he is employed is fuel

efficient. They are using new technology——

Mr. MACK. Is his job green?

Secretary SOLIS [continuing]. And the training he received—yes,

it is.

Mr. MACK. Driving a hybrid bus? So if somebody is driving a bus

that is not a hybrid, is that a green job?

Secretary SOLIS. I would ask you to refer to the definition——

Mr. MACK. No, answer my question.

Secretary SOLIS [continuing]. That BLS has provided us.

Mr. MACK. If someone drives a bus that is not hybrid, is that a

green job. You can’t answer it.

Secretary SOLIS. Transportation is used——

Mr. MACK. It is only a green job if it fits into your sales pitch.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady.

We now go to the gentleman from Chicago, Mr. Quigley, for 5

minutes.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Poneman, did you finish answering the

chairman’s question? There was a question that you were trying to

give an answer to.

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Are you straight? Did you get it out?

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir, I just wanted to be clear that the matter

was remanded without prejudice for further due diligence. And it

was not killed outright.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And just one other question to Secretary Solis,

could you just further elucidate on what you were just saying with

regard to the truck driver? I understand that he is working for the

industry.

Secretary SOLIS. Bus. Yes, yes, and it is a transportation authority that has employed energy efficient vehicles that were purchased

and manufactured in California. I would say to you, yes, this is a

green sector job. It is one where he received training, I did outline

that BLS, again, and BLS does in their analysis define mass transit industry as part of the green sector. So I don’t understand why

someone is trying to say that I am misleading the public, when we

are not.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I yield back to the gentleman, and thank the

gentleman for yielding.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, reclaiming my time, Mr. Cooper did a good job

discussing the fact that these other industries are subsidized too,

talking about coal. Clearly, we know all too well about gas and oil

and the subsidies there.
94

The nuclear industry was massively subsidized, particularly at

the beginning, given direct subsidies, patents, limits on liability,

extraordinarily cozy oversight process. All these industries are difficult to get going, and we have to recognize that.

But if the panel could take a few minutes and recognize, in addition to the subsidies to the existing manufacturers of energy, there

is also a cost that we are not taking into consideration. I live in

Chicago, which is the asthma morbidity and mortality capital of

the United States. We have two coal-burning power plants from the

1950’s that are literally causing deaths there. So at least we could

touch on the fact that there are alternative costs, not just the subsidies to these industries and to the green industries.

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you for that question, Congressman. And

it responds also I think to Congresswoman Buerkle’s question as

well.

We have massive amounts of coal in this country, and we are

going to continue using it. It still provides about 45 percent of our

electricity. But as you suggested, Congressman, we have to clean

it up. Under the Recovery Act, we are investing $3.4 billion in just

that task, so we can get clean coal competitive, and clean our environment at the same time. As we are sitting here today, Secretary

Chew is in an international meeting discussing carbon sequestration with other countries, so we can not only be competitive but get

the best technology deployed so we can clean up the coal and continue to get the electricity from it, but also preserve our health.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you.

Let me move on to something else. The American Energy Council, Innovation Council led by Bill Gates, is urging us in Congress

to make smart Federal investments in clean energy research and

development. Now, he is backed by many other CEOs, including

Bank of America Chairman Chad Holliday, CEOs and COOs who

are asking Congress to infuse our economy through Federal investment in these sorts of programs. So I guess if you don’t necessarily

believe what you deem a liberal Congressman from Chicago, there

are national experts in private industry, industry leaders who

agree with what you are trying to do.

Mr. PONEMAN. Congressman, this is a very important study. Because these are innovators, these are the people who not only know

that private capital is the driver of innovation and growth, but they

have actually done it successfully and they say where there are certain market imperfections, that is the place for government to play

a stimulative role, correct those imperfections and help get the new

green economy built and win America’s future.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I yield to

Mr. Connolly.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman yields.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you for yielding.

The premise of this hearing is, how Obama has, the green energy

program has killed jobs. So how many jobs have you killed, Secretary Solis?

Secretary SOLIS. We have actually helped to create jobs. And in

that we are training individuals.

Mr. CONNOLLY. So the premise is wrong?

Secretary SOLIS. In my——
95

Mr. CONNOLLY. Are you familiar with the Council of State Governments that says in one quarter alone we created, last year, we

created 51,000 green jobs? That is not the Obama administration

saying it, it is the Council of State Governments. I would ask that

this be entered into the record at this point.

Chairman ISSA. Without objection.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair.

Chairman ISSA. At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent that we include in the record, based on testimony, the email

produced by OMB from January 13th, which says in part, ‘‘After

canvassing the committee, it is a unanimous decision not to engage

in further discussions with Solyndra at this time.’’ Also, the January 26th email, which says in part, well, I will just leave it as, it

goes the other way, and the March 10th one which says in part,

‘‘DOE is trying to deliver the first loan guarantee within 60 days

from the inauguration. The prior administration could not get it

done for 4 years.’’

Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. CUMMINGS. No. Objection. Only because I don’t have it.

Chairman ISSA. Well, you don’t have something until I ask to

have it put in the record. It has been produced.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, I mean, I can’t. I object to something that

I don’t see. I just want to see it.

Chairman ISSA. Here you go.

I ask unanimous consent to——

Mr. CUMMINGS. I object until I can see it.

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Poneman, are you aware of these emails?

Mr. PONEMAN. No, sir, I am not.

Chairman ISSA. Even though they were DOE emails?

Mr. PONEMAN. I did not arrive until, I was sworn in in May, sir.

But I would be happy to review anything you wish to have reviewed, sir.

Chairman ISSA. Okay. I would ask you to verify these for the

record. I will mention in part, if the gentleman has no further objection, that they were produced to the Energy and Commerce

Committee, and these are copies we received from them.

With that, we go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold,

for 5 minutes.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much. And I did want to talk

a little bit about the green jobs.

I am all for jobs, whether they are green, brown, pink, purple,

yellow. It doesn’t matter. But it seems like, again, and certainly as

somebody from Texas, this really hits close to home, that we are

focusing on green jobs at the expense of the traditional oil and gas

industry and traditional petrochemical, coal, and the like. I am a

supporter of an all of the above energy policy, but we see all of this

effort going into what is a green job and what is not a green job

in generating energy, which is the key to this economy.

So I want to ask Mr. Poneman, the CRS has reported that the

United States has access to more energy and natural resources

than any other country in the world. Do you agree with that?

Mr. PONEMAN. I would have to see the study, sir. But we have

tremendous Resources in hydrocarbons, natural gas, oil and coal as

well as the other resources.
96

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Do you believe we should forsake those resources for green energy?

Mr. PONEMAN. Absolutely not, Congressman. I am glad you

called for an all of the above policy. We strongly believe in that,

and I think we are putting everything in place to promote our hydrocarbon sector as well as these. We need all of these energy

sources.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. How do you then explain some of the policies

that we see coming out of this administration with the slow-down

in leasing, the permitorium on offshore drilling, a call for punitive

taxes on the oil and gas industry?

Mr. PONEMAN. Congressman, I think we actually have a very

strong policy. Of course, we, and I am sure you as well, want us

to exploit these resources safely and to take into account best practices and learn the lessons from Macondo. But we are proceeding

with offshore and onshore leasing. I have just participated in a new

interagency committee the President mandated to look at Alaskan

resources. And we intend to have a very robust policy. We had the

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board just look at the natural gas

sector and make sure that as we proceed with a prodigious shale

gas resource that we proceed in a responsible, open, transparent

manner so we can continue to enjoy the confidence of the American

people.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So you are suggesting that some of these new

technologies for the shale gas that have been used in Texas for as

much as 60 years aren’t fully understood?

Mr. PONEMAN. I am saying that I think we have a very good report in from an expert committee that talks about things we could

do to improve the public transparency so we have a wide——

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, let me go on, because I have another line

of questioning and I have used up more than half my time already.

Mr. Poneman, are you acquainted with a gentleman by the name

of Steve Spinner?

Mr. PONEMAN. It does not ring a bell.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, a Department of Energy spokesman told

the Los Angeles Times last Friday that Mr. Spinner acted as a liaison between the Recovery Act office and the loans program office.

His LinkedIn profile claims that he reported to the Secretary and

was responsible for strategic operations of loan and loan guarantees, including renewable energy. As the Deputy Secretary of Energy, you didn’t know him?

Mr. PONEMAN. No, your references, I think I may have met him,

yes. I am not sure.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So you didn’t interact with him frequently,

though?

Mr. PONEMAN. It would have not have been somebody I dealt

with well enough to remember, no.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, Mr. Spinner was the CEO of a sports

and fitness company and an investor in internet companies before

working at the DOE. So no one ever questioned his qualifications

to come to the DOE?

Mr. PONEMAN. I don’t know that, sir, but I am happy to check.
97

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Were you aware that Mr. Spinner was also a

bundler for President Obama, raising over $500,000 for Obama’s

2008 campaign roll?

Mr. PONEMAN. No, sir.

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Thank you very much. With that, I

will yield back.

Mr. MACK [presiding]. Thank you. Actually,would the gentleman

yield?

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Sure.

Mr. MACK. Again, I want to follow back upon this question about

green jobs. I think we want to, whether it is like someone earlier

said, we just want to create jobs. But we certainly don’t want to

make an appearance to the American people that a program is

working by padding the statistics. Madam Secretary, with all due

respect, the idea of counting a job as a green job for driving a hybrid bus is, when people watch this hearing, it is offensive. It is offensive because they know that they are not being told the truth.

And they want the truth. The American people are smart. And if

you give them the truth, they can determine whether or not this

is a good thing or not.

But if you pad the numbers to try to make it look better for you,

at the expense of the taxpayers, it is offensive. So we want to have

a debate about whether or not it really is working. But when you

pad the numbers in such a way, it is very difficult to have a debate

about that. My time is expired.

The gentleman from——

Mr. CUMMINGS. You just called her a liar, basically.

Mr. MACK. I didn’t say that.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, you did. Let her answer.

Mr. MACK. Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, and I will start out by letting you answer the question.

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Welch. I would just say again,

in reference to the BLS, they do identify mass transit, this industry, as a part of the green service area. When it reduces pollution

or conserves natural resources, that is exactly what the buses are

doing. That is exactly what the vehicles that were built in California and were remanufactured, this is a whole new industry. And

I think that it is a positive direction that the President has outlined that we should be making investments in.

Mr. WELCH. Right, thank you.

I agree with many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle

that any job, we need energy, any jobs we can create in the energy

sector, we should. Governmental policy is very active in the carbonbased energy field. There is now some activism in the so-called

green sector.

By the way, China, as I understand it, is making massive investments and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I also think it is a fair question that Mr. Mack asked, how do

we do the accounting. People want to have credibility on it. I have

no reservation whatsoever trying to figure out, what do you want

to call a green job. Some are more questionable than others. That

probably is true in the carbon energy field as well.
98

But it is a fair point, I think, and I would encourage our Department to work so that we are all talking off the same page.

But I just want to give an example of something that is really

working in Vermont. There is a lot of focus on Solyndra, got to get

to the bottom of it. I understand one of the issues there is that the

investments that China made really plunged the price of solar panels, and it created a real advantage for China, which manipulates

its currency to the detriment of manufacturers here. That might be

an issue that we want to work with together. Because whether you

are doing solar panels or you are making batteries, if there is a

currency manipulation by China that is putting our hard-working

manufacturers at a disadvantage, we have to get together on that.

I would like to work with my colleagues to see if we can get more

manufacturing jobs here.

But this is a Vermont story. It is a great story, Vermont scale.

I recently visited a DOE grant recipient, it is called Neighbor

Works in Rutland. It received a $4.5 million grant. There was a lot

of excitement. In Vermont, we have contractors out of work, like we

have all around America.

And what Neighborhood Works has done is started a revolving

fund with that grant to help provide home energy efficiency retrofits. We have gotten 150 homes retrofitted, 170 in progress. The

goal is 1,000 by the end of the 3-year grant. That is 5 percent of

the entire housing stock in Rutland County. So it is a big deal for

us.

And it is saving the homeowners about $913 a year. That is real

money in Rutland County. And when I was there, I got a tour of

actual work that was being done in some of these old buildings.

And I was also at a class where we had scores of local contractors

who were getting updated on what they could do to get basically

in their market.

So I just want to cite that. It is not Solyndra scale, but it is realworld scale in Rutland, Vermont. It has local people doing the administration. It has local homeowners who are lining up to get the

opportunity to retrofit their homes and save the money. And it has

local contractors who are desperately looking for work.

So let me just ask you, let me say thank you that is working.

Secretary Solis, can you tell me if in your survey it is the case that

it is the construction workers that are probably getting hit harder

or as hard as any other sector in our economy, and how this plan

might be helpful to them?

Secretary SOLIS. It is very true. In fact, we have in the audience

here some individuals who represent the business industry and apprenticeships where they are retrofitting commercial buildings and

homes. And we have individuals here that are also working in

other segments in, say, hospital care where they are learning to

conserve and re-use and provide other efficiencies. Efficiency is one

of the definitions that the BLS has outlined. So yes, it falls very

much in line with that. And we are going to see more jobs like that

created.

We are making the transition from blue collar to green. That is

what it is. So it still could be very intensive, manufacturing, construction, yes. But there is a new component to it.
99

Mr. WELCH. Last year when I served on Energy and Commerce

with you, Mr. Barton was extremely helpful in trying to push energy efficiency. I hope we can find some common ground and do

that here. So I thank you. I yield back.

Mr. MACK. The gentleman’s time is expired. Mr. Lankford is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you.

And thanks for being here, and the conversation, this is a big

deal. Obviously we are tracking jobs, this is important to us, and

how it is done and how we classify it. This is a new category that

has been created, green jobs. Obviously you all are struggling

through how to define whether, if someone changes from an incandescent bulb to fluorescent bulb, now they are suddenly a green

job, where last week they were a janitorial job, now they are a

green job janitorial job. All those dynamics fit into this as we are

trying to find a clear definition to really get a real handle on what

this is.

So I appreciate the work you are doing on that. And I press on,

because we want to have a good definition that we can all agree

upon at the end of the day. We have to determine where these dollars are going.

Mr. Poneman, let me ask you as well as about clean energy. How

are you defining, is there a list that is working from the Department of Energy, these are clean energy sources?

Mr. PONEMAN. No. We don’t do it that way, Congressman. We

are trying to build a future. We are trying to build, as your colleague was saying, all of our energy Resources, absolutely including

those that have no and low carbon and everything from nuclear

and hydro through the renewables.

Mr. LANKFORD. Okay, so I am assuming solar is a clean energy,

wind is a clean energy, hydroelectric, clean energy.

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes.

Mr. LANKFORD. Biofuels. Would geothermal be considered a clean

energy source?

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes.

Mr. LANKFORD. Natural gas use?

Mr. PONEMAN. It is better than coal, because of course it only has

half of the greenhouse gas emission. So that is a significant improvement in terms of the greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. LANKFORD. Based on where we are with research and the

progress we are making, in the next 20 years, could we be at a spot

20 years from now on our current trend in where things are moving to have 80 percent of America’s energy be produced by clean

sources?

Mr. PONEMAN. Electricity. We believe, the President has called

for this, by 2035 we can have 80 percent of our electricity from

clean sources, yes.

Mr. LANKFORD. And where would you define clean sources? Is

that natural gas power plants, solar, wind? Where is that coming

from?

Mr. PONEMAN. Obviously anything that has zero carbon emissions, that counts completely. Then for example if something has

half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal, as natural gas does, as

a matter of logic, I would impute that much to it.
100

Mr. LANKFORD. And that is the challenge, is that obviously he

has called for that in the State of the Union Address. The challenge

then is, how do we define what energy sources are in, what is out

on that one. So at this point, has it been defined, this is the clean

energy source, so this is going to be included in that 80 percent target?

Mr. PONEMAN. I think when we contemplate getting the 80 percent, it would give that kind of credit to natural gas, as well as of

course the carbon free sources would be counted as well.

Mr. LANKFORD. What about solar? What percentage do you think

of electricity will be produced by solar 20 years from now?

Mr. PONEMAN. It depends. We have the sunshine initiative, we

are trying to drive down costs so it would levelize the cost of electricity from solar is the same. We think it is growing. We have 887

megawatts that went in last year, that was double the year before,

435. So it is going up.

Where exactly it is going to be in 2035, I couldn’t tell you.

Mr. LANKFORD. The challenge that I go back to, because when I

heard the President say that in the State of the Union on address,

my mind immediately went back to 1979, and I remember President Carter making a very similar statement. I went and researched that and pulled that, and in 1979, President Carter said,

by the year 2000, 20 percent of America’s electricity will be produced by solar power. That was the initiative in 1979. Obviously

we are not at that point, and we are 11 years after that target. So

we are going to have to greatly expand what is clean energy to be

able to hit some of these targets we are talking about with this 80

percent number.

Mr. PONEMAN. It is an ambitious goal, sir, but I believe it is one

we can reach.

Mr. LANKFORD. Well, it is one that we have heard before, obviously, in 1979. By the way, I am not against solar power or wind

or all that. I hope my car runs on pinwheels 1 day. That would be

great.

But in reality, what we really have is functioning traditional

fuels. I am concerned that there is this push toward the green energy jobs to the detriment of traditional energy sources that could

be successful in things.

Let me just mention one thing, too. Our committee has asked you

for some documents on a subcommittee study that you put together

on hydraulic fracking from the Department of Energy. Do you

know when those documents are going to be completed, coming

back to our committee?

Mr. PONEMAN. I do know, sir, some documents have been provided.

Mr. LANKFORD. Right. Some have. Just the complete set, do you

know when those are coming?

Mr. PONEMAN. I know that our staff is working with yours, and

I am happy to talk to them when I get back to the Department.

I am sure they are engaged and we want to make sure that you

get those.

Mr. LANKFORD. Obviously, it has been months in the process of

their request on that. We would like to have that done. There are

a lot of folks in the natural gas industry that are very concerned
101

about the number of studies and committees that are suddenly rising up on hydraulic fracking.

Mr. PONEMAN. Right.

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Farenthold mentioned before, in Oklahoma,

we have used hydraulic fracking since 1949. We have done it more

than 100,000 times, we have fracked the earth in Oklahoma. We

have great water, beautiful land and air. It is a great State to be

able to be in for our natural resources there. And we have experienced what happens with natural gas fracking and with oil

fracking, we have seen it.

Even you had mentioned in your testimony about since 1970, the

Federal Government has been involved in helping with the fracking

process, and the technology of that. Our State Department currently is helping governments all over the world learn how to be

able to frack, while at the same time, DOE and EPA and others

are studying fracking to determine whether it is safe here and how

to regulate it more and that.

So this push and pull between, are we pushing green jobs so

quickly and in studying and trying to put boundaries around traditional energy that we are going to choke off traditional energy and

try to force the rise of green energy, that is part of my concern. If

we are going to do all of the above, we have to do all of the above

and make sure that we are doing them all well.

Mr. PONEMAN. On that last point, sir, it is an excellent point. We

have a prodigious gas resource we are getting from having only had

1 trillion cubic fee of shale gas in 2001, we are now over a quarter

of our natural gas comes from those tight shale gas deposits. The

critical thing, as I think we all agree is, we have to make sure we

do it in a way that is transparent and open so the American people

can continue to have confidence in that prodigious energy resource.

Mr. LANKFORD. Correct, but we can’t in the process choke off investment in that area, that suddenly there is a transition. We have

to be able to say, if it is there, it si there, let’s go after it.

With that, I yield back.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney is recognized

for 5 minutes.

Mr. TIERNEY. Six minutes or 5 minutes? I just wondered if we

are going to continue the trend.

Chairman ISSA. Only in the usual way, Mr. Tierney, in which the

last question comes in with a half a second to go and the answer

takes that minute. And I expect that will happen.

Would you please reset the clock?

Mr. TIERNEY. I think part of what we are talking about here is

whether or not this premise of the hearing is, whether a green

agenda kills jobs. To me it seems a bit of a suspect statement, if

not totally political. I think we ought to really be asking whether

or not investments in green energy are useful or not.

And I look, and I see that China seems to think that it is. Truth

of the matter is that China is now number one, it is the highest

public market for financing in clean energy, the sector. We are

number three. We used to be number one. We are number three

now, behind China and Germany. China has secured $47.3 billion
102

in asset financing in 2010 for clean energy projects. We had $21

billion.

Sixty percent of all clean energy technology IPOs in the world in

2010 were from Chinese companies. China has created 16 national

energy research and development centers and 10 are specifically to

drive innovation in the clean energy sector. By the end of 2011, national Chinese research and development expenditures are expected to rise 11 percent over levels earlier this year. And there

has been a 600 percent increase in the number of college graduates

in science fields in China between 1995 and 2005.

So the truth of the matter is that China certainly thinks that

creating jobs and moving forward by investing in green technologies is, as Mr. Quigley stated, the Economic Council of the

President, Jeffrey Inmault, Norman Augustine, Bill Gates, and others, all down the line, they think it is an investment, that there

should be some public support for what the private industry is

doing. They asked for $16 billion in general clean technology investment and asked for a specific $1 billion for the energy advanced research program on that initiative.

So there are a lot of people, a host of people that really believe

that this is an investment worth making to support what the private industry would on that. I think it is a shame we are sitting

here while China charges ahead, while Germany charges ahead

and we fall further behind. We are still arguing about whether

making an investment in clean technologies is killing jobs, something like that. It just doesn’t seem right.

And I think we should investigate what the role of different people has been in supporting this. But I just take a note in the newspaper this morning, there are a bunch of article in the press suggesting that 10 Republican members of our committee wrote letters

to the Department of Energy praising loan guarantee programs.

They were glowing in their terms, they were looking for funds for

various projects in their district. So apparently nobody wants to

pick winners and losers unless we can pick winners in a specific

district on that.

Let me read from one of the stories. It is an article that ran last

night in Energy Daily. ‘‘In one letter dated October 30th, 2009,

Representative Dan Burton,’’ our colleague here who is the second

ranking Republican on the committee and its former chairman,

‘‘joined 10 Indiana Members of Congress to express his support for

loan applications submitted by Abound Solar.’’

Are you familiar with Abound Solar, Mr. Poneman?

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TIERNEY. According to your Web site, they got a $400 million

loan guarantee under the exact same loan guarantee program as

Solyndra. Is that true?

Mr. PONEMAN. Same program, yes, sir.

Mr. TIERNEY. And what your Web site says, the Department of

Energy offered Abound Solar Manufacturing, LLC a $400 million

loan guarantee to manufacture state-of-the-art thin film solar panels. The project includes two facilities, one in Longmont, Colorado,

and the other in Tipton, Indiana. Is that right?

Mr. PONEMAN. As I recall.
103

Mr. TIERNEY. So Mr. Issa says that doing things like that is kind

of a back door corruption. Do you think that a Member sending a

letter in support of a constituent company suggesting that they

might benefit from a program like this is some sort of corruption?

Mr. PONEMAN. Let me be very clear, Congressman——

Mr. TIERNEY. I don’t think it is.

Mr. PONEMAN. We welcome all correspondence from Congress

and treat it respectfully. However, when we are looking at these

proposed loans, we analyze them purely on the merits.

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, one would hope. So on the one hand, we have

those 10 Members putting in a letter and suggesting it go to their

company in their district. And the next night they are on Fox News

saying the whole green thing is a scam in the first place. I guess

we will have to go those Members and decide which it is.

I noticed that our chairman, Mr. Issa, who talks about this being

a job killer and back door corruption, himself wrote a letter to the

Secretary of the Department. I just quote from the first part, ‘‘I

write to express my support of Aptura Motors,’’ an application for

a loan under the Department of Energy’s 136 Advanced Technology

Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive program, ATVMIP. Later on

there he says Aptura’s project will also promote domestic job creation.

So apparently on the one hand we are having a hearing about

whether we are killing jobs. But when it comes to a company in

our district we are suggesting that they are going to promote domestic job creation if we make the right investment.

I would like to turn this hearing into, how do we make smart investments like the President’s Council talks about, and how do we

do that. Secretary Solis, when we make smart investments, if we

are going to try to catch up to China and Germany, take advantage

of all our innovation in this country, it would be useful, I would

think, to have some people who can actually do those jobs. Is that

correct?

Secretary SOLIS. Congressman, that is what we are hearing from

the industry right now, that we don’t have enough qualified individuals in this new technology.

Mr. TIERNEY. So what the Department of Labor is doing basically

is not creating the jobs, you are training the people for the jobs

that are created?

Secretary SOLIS. I have said that from the start.

Mr. TIERNEY. And how has your record been on that?

Secretary SOLIS. Well, we are now, for our $500 million that we

have received through the Recovery Act, we have already trained

up 52,000. Our goal is about 96,000. So we are more than halfway

there. And I would say our numbers are growing, because these are

3-year, 2 and 3-year projects. So you have to consider when the

startup began.

So I think we are on the road to slow recovery. As soon as the

economy and venture capitalists feel that there is a way to go, then

I think you are going to see those jobs there, and we will have

trained individuals ready for them.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
104

I was just listening to the conversation here about whether we

are——

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman suspend? I apologize.

Okay, the gentleman will wait. Go ahead, please.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Just getting back to the subject of listening to

Mr. Tierney, and we are talking about whether we are killing jobs

or are we creating jobs, are we making smart investments, you

have to forgive me, I come from the private sector and I am new.

So I have a little bit of difficulty understanding how government

jobs are profitable.

But Secretary Solis, how many people with green jobs training

have green jobs?

Secretary SOLIS. I would say the number of participants that

have gone through what we are talking about here is 52,000 individuals that went through our green jobs programs. Not all of them

have been placed in jobs yet, but many of them were incumbent

workers currently employed and were upgraded, so they got other

certificates.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. So you may just answer this, what fraction of

the graduates of green job training programs have since obtained

green jobs?

Secretary SOLIS. The percentage, well, I will give you a number

of individuals that have been placed in jobs, that is about 8,000.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. How are people selected for green job

training? Do people opt for green job training instead of normal

training, or is this a government decision?

Secretary SOLIS. It is not a government decision. As I said earlier, these are partnership grants that are based on market based

information. So you have businesses that will work in conjunction

with, say, a community college or another individual group. And

they will decide where the needs are based on facts and information. We then monitor that. It is a competitive process. We do not

pick the winners and losers. These are individuals that compete

State-wide and in some basis, nationally.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. You are familiar with the Davis-Bacon

Act?

Secretary SOLIS. Yes, I am.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. A key part of President Obama’s American Jobs

Act is creating jobs to rebuild or repair at least 35,000 schools. Do

you think that waiving Davis-Bacon requirements on school construction has any merit?

Secretary SOLIS. I think that the Davis-Bacon Act was, provided

many decades ago through a Republican administration, and it was

basically to keep wages at a good, balanced level so they wouldn’t

be driven down with outside individuals coming in from say, other

neighboring States or other places. So I do believe that it does provide a good quality of, how could I say, salary for individuals in a

competitive market. Yes, I do agree.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. So you are familiar with the George Mason University study that basically concluded that suspension of the DavisBacon Act would have created about 55,000 additional jobs federally, because the way they made their calculations, they were paying on the average of about 6 percent higher than market rates?
105

Secretary SOLIS. I am not familiar with the study. I know there

have been individuals and different groups that have said that

Davis-Bacon may have an impact in raising wages. But I would tell

you that what our Department does is a wage survey. So we base

it on what that sector is providing in the neighboring areas and we

come up with a medium. That is how we base our Davis-Bacon

rates.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. So do you think green jobs to this point, the

money invested, as Mr. Tierney says, are we making smart investments? Are we showing a profit with these government jobs?

Secretary SOLIS. They are not government jobs, Congressman. I

have to remind you that we don’t create government jobs. We are

actually helping to train individuals who will then be available for

private sector jobs. Or if, say, they are working for a local government, they may be hired up to work in that particular part that

is green. So I am not the actual creator of a job; we help to train

them.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. I think sometimes we focus so much on the fact

that unemployment rates are high and we need to create jobs. But

we often spend a heck of a lot of money, we did so with the first

stimulus, and we are staring at possibly stimulus 2 here. It reminds me of a story, I am from southern Tennessee, right on the

Alabama border. There is a story about a farmer who decided to

sell watermelons at the market. So he found a watermelon just

across the line in Alabama and he would go load his truck up and

buy the watermelons for a dollar, and he would bring them back

to Tennessee and sell them for 75 cents. He did that a few times,

and clearly wasn’t turning a profit. So he came to the conclusion

he just needed a bigger truck.

Sometimes when we look at these jobs, green jobs and how we

are spending stimulus money at an incredibly high rate for an

overpriced, sometimes overpaid jobs, I am just wondering if we are

solving the problem of our debt crisis or if we are just making it

worse.

Secretary SOLIS. I had an opportunity to visit Tennessee almost

a year ago and visited the Sharp industries there and was very impressed to see the kind of training and the diverse work force there

that were involved in solar panel development. And the owner of

the plant there, as you know, is from another country. However,

their employment there helped to provide a substantial number of

good-paying jobs there.

I asked him, what will it take for you to continue to expand? Because we obviously want to see this industry grow. And he said,

well, what we would like to do is be able to open two or more factories, but we know that we have to have a demand. So they are

very interested in seeing expansion of that particular plant. But to

see people who are in another industry that was dying, because

they were making plasma TVs and other things, now they are into

solar panels, this was a job creator. And clearly, the individuals

that make the decision to create that industry there in Tennessee

where unemployment rates are very high I think was a very good

decision.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Did you get any good deals on watermelons?

Secretary SOLIS. I didn’t stop to have one.
106

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady.

We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5

minutes.

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my friend from

Tennessee began by saying he didn’t understand how public sector

jobs could help an economy. I find that odd, given that Tennessee

has benefited from Federal investments in Oakridge and created

actually incredible intellectual capital that has generated technologies and jobs and fostered an economy. To say nothing of, going

further back, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which created jobs

with a strategic investment by the Federal Government and then

transformed an entire region then allowed it to develop economically.

Other than that, he is right, public sector investment in public

sector jobs makes no sense.

The premise of this hearing——

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes.

Dr. DESJARLAIS. I was just curious, with all the aid that we got

in Tennessee, what has happened from the deficit from that time

to now.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am not sure what the gentleman’s question——

Dr. DESJARLAIS. Well, we are talking about how we have created

all these good jobs. But yet we continue to have a spiraling deficit.

Is there any correlation there?

Mr. CONNOLLY. Reclaiming my time, I would say respectfully to

the gentleman, it is not good enough to know the cost of everything

and the value of nothing. There is a difference in spending. There

is a difference between purchasing a consumable and making a

strategic investment. And quite frankly, your State has really benefited from the latter, as has mine.

The premise of this hearing is nothing but, in my view, a raw,

partisan assertion that presupposes the answer. We don’t say, in

the title of this hearing, are Obama’s green energy, is Obama’s

green energy agenda creating jobs. That would be a fair intellectual

pursuit. We say, how Obama’s green energy agenda is killing jobs,

which gives away, transpaerntly, the agenda and the intent of the

majority in putting together this hearing. It is not an honest intellectual pursuit. And that is too bad, what a lost opportunity. Because I really would have liked a hearing that actually did go in

depth into, well, how are you keeping numbers. Are we disappointed in some investments that didn’t work out? Are there

some that are panning out that we now are happy with or we

didn’t expect would have the kind of payoff they did? But that is

not really what we are about here.

And just sadly, in looking at how sometimes we perform, you

have been cut off in trying to give some answers or explain. You

have been told it is a yes or no, so that of course we box you in,

so that nothing gets in the record from you three that is unwanted

or that contradicts the false premise of this hearing. And for that,

I am very sad. It is a missed opportunity. I hope some day that we

can put aside partisan gotcha and yet another hearing and trying

our best to embarrass an administration and actually have an honest intellectual pursuit.
107

So with that, I yield back my time.

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman yields back. Would you like to reclaim your time?

Mr. CONNOLLY. I reclaim my time as a matter of courtesy to the

ranking member.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. I just want to go to, this

is a New York Times piece which is very interesting, it talks about,

it says here the bankruptcies of three American solar power companies in the last month, including Solyndra of California, and this

is dated September 19, 2011, including Solyndra of California on

Wednesday have left China’s industry with a dominant sales position, almost three fifths of the world’s production capacity and rapidly declining costs. Some American, Japanese and European solar

companies still have a technological edge over Chinese rivals, but

seldom a cost advantage, according to the industry. Loans at very

low rates from state-owned banks in Beijing, cheap or free land

from local and provincial government across China, huge economies

of scale and other cost advantages has transformed China from a

minor player in the solar power industry just a few years ago into

the main producer of an increasingly competitive source of electricity.

Do you have a comment on that?

Mr. PONEMAN. Yes, sir, Congressman. We can get it back. We

have the best innovation, the Abound case that was just noted, we

have some great technologies. And there is no one who is better at

innovation, marketing and making the private sector work than the

American people.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And it can create jobs?

Mr. PONEMAN. Absolutely. Hundreds of thousands of jobs already

we have created.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Amash.

Mr. AMASH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I gladly yield my time

back to you.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. I thank him a lot.

Mr. Poneman, I am going to zero in on something that Secretary

Solis said about, we don’t create these jobs by hiring the people, we

in fact train them and the private sector hires them. Then how do

you explain that the jobs created at the Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, a DOE-funded lab, basically government jobs, they

were allowed to and successfully bid for the Algerian contract for

carbon sequestration monitoring against an American company,

Halliburton, and their Canadian partner. They underbid an American company that would have put the jobs in Houston, and instead, they used a government lab to underbid them.

Why is it DOE is bidding against the private sector at all? Why

is it that you in fact undercut an American company’s attempt to

bid in a foreign country? Why?

Mr. PONEMAN. Two points, Congressman. Number one, to be

clear, like all of our national laboratories, Lawrence Berkeley is a

government-owned contractor operated facility. Point one. Point

two, I am not familiar with the specific facts of the matter.
108

Chairman ISSA. We will give it to you and you can respond for

the record.

Mr. PONEMAN. I would be happy to respond.

Chairman ISSA. Contractor-funded, I am very familiar, I have

visited many of the labs and certainly a lot of both our overt and

covert facilities. Bottom line is, taxpayer dollars prop that up. Special considerations, even special patenting capability and the like,

all of which are available to Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley and the others, Los Alamos.

Why are, presuming that this is a correct report, why is it that

they should be bidding at all for contracts that are private sector

contracts?

Mr. PONEMAN. There are many of these bids, Congressman, I am

not familiar with this particular case, in which they are a consortia, in which they are a number of private and academic and

other institutions. That is one thing. The second thing I just want

to note, we have worked very, very hard so that the intellectual

property that has been developed in those national laboratories actually gets spun out of the private sector so that it promotes and

stimulates private investment.

So I am very happy to look at the particulars of this case and

get back to you. But I am not familiar with it from what you have

described.

Chairman ISSA. Well, you brought it up, so I will just be quite

candid. You don’t own the intellectual property when these labs do

it. Individuals, inventors at the labs using government money ultimately spin them out and become very wealthy. It is one of the

problems of the labs. And if you don’t know it, you have only been

on since March 2009, take a look at it. In fact, that has been part

of our problem, is we fund people to in fact develop, we give them

special access, and then yes, we do commercialize. The problem is,

we take our money and allow somebody to commercialize it, basically making entrepreneurism on the back of the taxpayers.

But I will give you the information on this so that you can answer for the record.

Madam Secretary, once again I am going to just review the facts.

And Dr. Hall, I would like you to weigh in on this. When you train

somebody to drive a bus, if it is a hybrid bus it is a green job. That

was from your own statement on Mr. Reyes, correct?

Secretary SOLIS. Yes.

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Dr. Hall, can you today give this committee, and Mr. Connolly left, and I apologize that he is not here,

but I am sure he will get word. The premise of ours is that you

have bad numbers because you haven’t had the metrics in order to

get good numbers. If I put LEDs in my office, apparently my staff

becomes a green staff. If my staff director drives in in a hybrid, I

guess he becomes a green person. If a lobbyist is paid a million dollars a year here to lobby for green grants, apparently it is a green

job.

What are the number of green jobs, real jobs, that go on past

government contracting or government subsidies today that are actually net increases since the President took office?

Dr. HALL. The measurement, the two surveys I talked about, we

are actually in the process of collecting data for the first time.
109

Chairman ISSA. So in the future, you will be able to give us numbers.

Dr. HALL. Yes.

Chairman ISSA. But today, your numbers are clearly wrong, unless you make the assumption that teaching a bus driver to drive

a bus is a green job. Understanding that there are no new net bus

drivers created, there is only somebody driving a bus with a battery instead of a bus with just an engine and a starter battery,

right?

Dr. HALL. Our green jobs include mass transit. So actually, any

busy service, whether it is——

Chairman ISSA. Oh, okay, so let me understand this. Because

Mr. Connolly had some righteous indignation. You are counting everyone who drives a bus as a green job.

Dr. HALL. Mass transit is a green service, yes.

Chairman ISSA. Oh, my goodness. I didn’t know that.

Mr. Poneman, one last question. There was some hyperbole here

earlier about Beijing’s terrible environment. Isn’t it true that

Americans enjoy the acid rain from China and Vietnam’s abysmal

use of coal by not cleaning it up and simply pouring it into the air?

Ultimately that terrible Beijing ends up falling on the heads of

Californians and our cleaner, much cleaner facilities using coal and

natural gas, do not produce the kind of acid rain they produce?

Mr. PONEMAN. Alas, this is a global problem. And the emissions

that happen in one country certainly transmit to the other countries. That is why we have to address this on a global basis. And

we are trying to do that every day.

Chairman ISSA. I would submit that no one is addressing China.

China is doing what they want to do and stealing our jobs and we

are actually enabling it.

With that, I go to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Chairman. And let me welcome our witnesses. It is certainly a pleasure to see our former colleague, Secretary of Labor, it is a pleasure indeed. Dr. Poneman,

Dr. Hall.

I was amazed, quite frankly, as I tried to analyze the title of this

hearing. And that is the idea that the green energy agenda is killing jobs. And it is sort of, it struck me, how can you kill something

that is already dead, that the jobs are not being killed by the energy program that is being developed and articulated, that job opportunities are being increased.

And I want to especially thank and commend you, Madam Secretary, for the training programs that people in the congressional

district that I represent, thousands and thousands and thousands

of low income people, in an inner city community, who basically migrated from some of those areas that have been discussed, and

have had opportunities denied them because business and industry

has flown. So I commend you and the Department for the sensitivities that you have displayed, for the understanding.

I also want to commend my colleague from Virginia for his understanding of Tennessee history and the recognition of how

impactful government intervention has been on raising the quality

of life in areas throughout the country.
110

Dr. Hall, let me ask you, because I am interested in the numbers

that the chairman asked about, how soon do you think we will be

able to get those?

Dr. HALL. We will start producing the green goods and services

data in the first quarter of 2012. And by the middle of 2012 we will

have the second survey results with the green technology and practices.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Let me just ask, there are people who argue that investing in

green companies, the government is picking winners and losers.

But investing in the energy industry is not new to government. We

have done it for a long time, especially subsidies to oil companies,

to big oil. Now instead of focusing predominantly on the fossil fuel

projects, the Department of Energy loan programs appear to be

promoting investment in a more diverse array of energy sectors.

Dr. Poneman, let me ask you, can you describe the various energy sectors that the Department of Energy has made loan guarantees to, and can you describe what factors the Department takes

into account in determining which companies get these loans?

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you, Congressman. I will answer both

parts of that question. We have invested loan guarantees in the

first nuclear power plant to be built in this country in three decades. We have invested in the largest wind farm in the world, some

of the largest solar facilities in the world. We have invested in geothermal. We have invested in wind farms.

The criteria that we use, the criteria that were wisely put into

statute by the U.S. Congress going back to 2005 and later in 2009,

we look for those projects that are innovative, that can make a significant difference in terms of creating a competitive, successful industry that hires American workers. Our data so far suggests we

are generating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

I had the opportunity, speaking of Tennessee, to go to Smyrna,

TN to open a Nissan Leaf factory that is already hiring 700 to 800

workers, and when in permanent operation will have 1,300 workers. We have Iraqi war veterans who are working on a desert facility for solar in the Mojave Desert. We have 1,000 green employees

in the A123 factory in Romulus, MI, taking people like Annette

Herrera and giving them jobs after they have been looking for 21⁄2

years. We have seen this works, we can win this future.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, can I ask your indulgence for a

minute to ask a question of the Secretary?

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, the gentleman will be given

an additional minute.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much.

Madam Secretary, let me ask, what are the factors that your

agency considers when you are trying to determine who gets training grants and what kid of training opportunities would be created

as a result of those expenditures?

Secretary SOLIS. Congressman Davis, this is a competitive grant

process. So what we look for are obviously the potential for partnership. Industry has to be a part of that. It could be labor management, it could be a community based with an employer. And we

have to look at the information that they provide in terms of mar-
111

ket research, where the jobs will be, where there is a need and

where there is an educational gap.

It is a very competitive process. Actually in one of our grants

alone that we gave out, Pathways Out of Poverty, to direct funding

to low income communities with high rates of poverty, we were

over-subscribed, we only could give out less than 90 grants. And

there were over 400 applicants. So we know that there is a need,

there is an interest. And these were a combination of industry

working with communities and community colleges. So there is a

great need.

We are sorely underfunding, in my opinion, these kinds of efforts.

We have to have a better trained work force.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you all very much.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

We now go to the very patient gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.

Kelly.

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman.

First of all, thank you all for being here. I would not disagree

that President Obama’s ideas on green jobs, he really believes that

is a way we should go. But when you look at the history of our

country, the ability to power up all over this country really is what

created the jobs that we had back then, and we powered up the

rural community. We did an awful lot of things because we had so

many natural resources right here.

And I hear people reference China and Germany. And I would

suggest to you that China is one of the biggest purchasers of coal

from us. They also do things a little bit differently than we do. So

I don’t want to model ourselves after China or Germany. Germany

has a problem with natural Resources.

But I think most people would agree, and in our business, one

of the things, we sit down each year and try to project what we are

going to do the next year, I am in the automobile business. One of

our costs, of course, is the cost of money, but also the cost of energy. And by far, the most affordable thing for me is the fossil

fuels. And most economists agree, okay, if energy is a component

of what is going to drive your ultimate cost of operation, then

shouldn’t we be looking at making sure that energy costs stay low?

Madam Secretary, Mr. Poneman, I would ask you, isn’t that

something we all agree on? If we are really concerned about jobs

and creating jobs, I would also suggest that maybe we also need

to consider keeping the jobs we already have and making sure that

they have a more sustainable life. Is that something you would

agree on? I think most economists agree that the low cost of energy

really does help job creators.

Secretary SOLIS. I agree, but I also know that because of what

we saw happening in the automobile industry, in fact, in Detroit

and the northeast section, we saw that the competition with foreign

builders from Japan, China and Korea, South Korea, were actually

better at producing more fuel-efficient cars.

Mr. KELLY. And we know why they were, because their cost of

buying fuel was a lot greater than ours for a long, long time. They

import it all, we had it right here. The cost of gasoline was very

inexpensive in the States, and that is why we continued to build
112

what we built, because it was affordable and we could build those

cars.

I mean, if somebody had a choice, and I am going to tell you, I am a Chevrolet dealer, the fact that we use $7,500 of taxpayer

money to sell a Chevy Volt to me does not seem to be a very good

investment from a tax income. I don’t believe that. I believe that

people will buy other cars that are more affordable. And if we have

to use taxpayer money to sell that car, that doesn’t make sense to

me.

But my point is, if energy is a true cost of your total operation,

for a job creator, that is important. People in my industry and

other small businesses, they really do, that is a component. So

when we tell them that, listen, the traditional energies that made

us great, and were very affordable, now we are going to go to green

energy, even though heavily subsidized with taxpayer money, is

much more expensive. Now, how does that drive my cost of operation down?

Secretary SOLIS. Those industries, GM, Chrysler, have actually

paid back their loans. And I can tell you——

Mr. KELLY. Well, but they paid back, they over-borrowed and

paid back with money they over-borrowed.

Secretary SOLIS [continuing]. I have seen the assembly lines——

Mr. KELLY. And please, I don’t want to get into that. My question

is, is it directly related to jobs. In my area of the country, northwest Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania has been called the Saudi

Arabia of natural gas. We have a third of the world’s coal beneath

our surface. I have friends in western Pennsylvania that cannot get

a permit to mine coal any more because the EPA took over primacy

from the Pennsylvania DEP. I can tell you what.

So in the interest of creating green jobs and creating green energy, which is more expensive than fossil fuel, and we are saying,

yes, we want to create jobs, what we are going to do is we are going

to penalize the people that already create cheap energy, we are

going to come out with a taxpayer-subsidized new green energy.

And if the ultimate cost is still higher than we had, how does that

help us?

Secretary SOLIS. I will tell you that the Brookings——

Mr. KELLY. I am sorry, ma’am, I was going to ask Secretary

Poneman.

Mr. PONEMAN. It is a great question, Congressman. Let me be

very clear, number one, the premise about trying to get the low

cost of energy, that is exactly right. That is why we are trying to

drive down the cost of solar to 5 to 6 cents level cost of electricity,

and then it competes, point one. Point two, we have used this program to protect the existing jobs. We protected 33,000 jobs, Ford

Motor Co., through our loan guarantee program, making incremental improvements——

Mr. KELLY. I am not talking about Ford or GM now, I am talking

about at some point these industries——

Mr. PONEMAN. These are all jobs.

Mr. KELLY. Well, no. No. These industries, okay, they compete on

a global market. I understand that,. We are talking about the cost

of energy in all these different businesses okay.

Mr. PONEMAN. Right.
113

Mr. KELLY. We are talking about, do these green initiatives really create jobs. And my other question was, we already have a base

of jobs now creating traditional energy, and we are holding them

back. And that is not arguable. We are actually holding these people back.

Now, it is true, and at some point, at some point, I raised four

children and they all learned to ride a bike and they started off

with training wheels. But sooner or later you have to take the

training wheels off.

Mr. PONEMAN. That is right, sir.

Mr. KELLY. I am saying, in these green initiatives, we look at

ethanol, we look at all these things, people are saying, look, this

just doesn’t work, it just doesn’t make sense. My question is, when

do you take the training wheels off and when do you stop subsidizing this when the ultimate product is greater cost than the one

we already have, and we have it in great supply? We are not running out.

Mr. PONEMAN. This is a great question, because the question is,

are we building the future or are we building the past. If we want

to win competitively in this country, we are going to have to beat,

just as we did in the Industrial Revolution, in the technology

revolution——

Mr. KELLY. I understand that. I understand that.

Mr. PONEMAN. The energy revolution is next.

Mr. KELLY. Why are we penalizing the people that already——

Mr. PONEMAN. To the contrary, sir, we are investing heavily——

Mr. KELLY. You and I will disagree on that. I will tell you that

the investments we are making, at some point we cannot continue

to fund these. I think we need to take a look at these. But at the

end of the day, we are making it very difficult for job creators. We

are driving their costs up with no benefits.

I yield back my time.

Mr. PONEMAN. The investments we are making in coal——

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman, although his time is expired, if you would like to briefly answer.

Mr. PONEMAN. Thank you. Just briefly, Congressman, we are in- vesting very heavily, $3.4 billion we are putting into our carbon

capture and sequestration, and our CCPI program. We are strongly

supporting our existing technologies and our existing industries as

well as investing in the future. We think we can win the future.

Chairman ISSA. I thank both the gentlemen.

I would now ask unanimous consent that the earlier described

emails be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

Additionally, I would ask that the LA Times environmental page,

which I am going to give you a copy of, that shows that the endangered tortoise is now making the aforementioned solar Mojave

Desert project on a hiatus for the foreseeable future, based on—let

me make sure I describe it right—the 38 reptiles that might die.

So hopefully Mojave Desert jobs will some day happen. But right

now, 38 tortoises stand in the way.

And with that, we recognize the gentleman from Manchester,

New Hampshire, Mr. Guinta, for 5 minutes.

Mr. GUINTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you

all for coming today.
114

I wanted to move into a little bit of a different direction, if I

could ask and direct my comments to Secretary Solis. I wanted to

actually talk to you a little bit about a project in New Hampshire

that I think you are familiar with, a Job Corps Center that has

been a long time in the making. And there have been a lot of

delays related to a lot of different issues.

But first, I wanted to convey to you that our delegation is intent

on working collectively to try to make this project happen, make it

happen timely and as quickly as we can, and certainly under budget. So to that extent, could you give me just a quick status update

on at least what you know on where the Job Corps Center stands

as of today?

Secretary SOLIS. Congressman, we are moving ahead with that.

I am delighted that we have the support from your delegation, because I think one of our goals is to try to at least have one Job

Corps Center in every State. Obviously yours was very important

to us.

And we did have some delays, but now we are moving ahead. By

the end of the week I think we are going to take a preliminary step

in releasing what we call sources sought, notice to gauge what the

small business interests are. And that is going to be a very important component, so that small businesses can also look at getting

involved in this project potentially.

Mr. GUINTA. So based on that, do you feel confident or could you

guarantee that the construction of this New Hampshire project

would be focused on New Hampshire businesses only? Or, do you

feel that there is a possibility that outside businesses, outside of

the State, would be part of the construction?

Secretary SOLIS. Well, we will find out once we get that information as a result of what we are going to be posting. My hope is that,

yes, all the jobs do stay in the area, because that is what our intent

is.

Mr. GUINTA. Given that the delegation feels strongly that New

Hampshire businesses would certainly qualify.

Secretary SOLIS. Absolutely.

Mr. GUINTA. They have done different Federal projects in the

State in the past, and I would certainly like to see that New Hampshire businesses and New Hampshire jobs for a New Hampshire

project are paramount as we move forward with the project.

Can you talk to me a little bit about the status of the PLA issue

or whether there will be a PLA?

Secretary SOLIS. We are planning for that to take place. But once

we get all the information and we survey the small businesses and

potentially their involvement, then we will move forward.

Mr. GUINTA. I would love, as that process moves forward, to try

to keep in communication about PLA, if a PLA is going to be written, what the requirements within the PLA are going to be. I take

the position that I would like to see a level playing field, and I

would like to see every business, regardless of whether they are

union or non-union, have a fair opportunity to work on this project.

Secretary SOLIS. I understand, and that is why we are doing the

survey now.

Mr. GUINTA. Good. I appreciate that.
115

Also, relative to the solicitation phase, are there going to be, or

can you give me an idea on what the green requirements or building requirements would be?

Secretary SOLIS. I can’t elaborate on that at this time.

Mr. GUINTA. But if there will be green requirements, is that

something you can notify the delegation of?

Secretary SOLIS. Absolutely. Once we identify who the actual

contract will go to, I am sure we will be able to work with you and

the delegation, because I know they are very interested.

Mr. GUINTA. The reason I ask is, the unemployment rate in New

Hampshire within the construction industry is far higher than the

actual New Hampshire unemployment rate, which is around 5.5

percent, and it is much higher than the national average of 9.1 percent. So the construction industry is eager to work on this job, and

I am eager to see New Hampshire employers and individuals get

back to work as quickly as we can. I know that you share in that

same vision.

So I look forward to working with you on that particular issue.

If there are issues with the PLA, I would like to make sure that

we work through those quickly and effectively and try to get this

project underway.

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GUINTA. Yes, I would.

Chairman ISSA. I would like to thank the Department of Labor

for sending all Members of at least the majority the number of

training jobs just prior to this that were in their district. I take

note that it was informational and not lobbying.

The committee set about to have this hearing be about proper accounting for job creation and about whether or not we had net job

gains or loss and so on. And many people objected to the title.

But I just want to close with a simple question for Dr. Hall. As

I understand it, if I wanted to, I could say that every job fueling

a bus, fueling a bus is a green job because it is a job in mass transit. I could probably say the same thing about every United Airline

pilot, right?

Dr. HALL. Sure, yes. The logic of the mass transit of course is

that every single bus may replace dozens of cars.

Chairman ISSA. Okay, I just wanted to understand that for the

record.

Dr. HALL. That is why it is in there.

Chairman ISSA. Because an empty bus being driven or an empty

train being driven might be inefficient as can be, and highly subsidized. But it is a green job. So I look forward to receiving what

I would consider to be the undeniable green jobs. You have all been

very patient. You have lived up to our 12 o’clock anticipated deadline. I thank you for your testimony.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, just a few minutes, please? I just

have to get something in the record. I didn’t know you were wrapping up.

Chairman ISSA. I am wrapping up, but if you have a unanimous

consent, I would accept it at this time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

I just wanted, Mr. Chairman, you just, I don’t know what you

were referring to, but with regard to information, but Mr. Chair-
116

man, I have another document I would like to enter into the record.

This is a report I asked my staff to complete for Members, all members of our committee. It provides information from the Brookings

Report and the Departments of Energy and Labor about green initiatives in each of our districts, both Democrats and Republicans.

I asked my staff to put together this report so each Member can

see what programs are going on right now that may contribute to

job creation in his or her district, region, metropolitan area. Some

of this relates to Recovery Act funding and some of it relates to private funding.

The point is that we need to support this sector, because these

are the jobs of the future and we have to invest in this future if

we want our Nation to remain competitive.

I also want to take the time—I would ask that it be submitted

to the record.

Chairman ISSA. First of all, I would ask unanimous consent that

that inclusion and other extraneous material that Members may

want to have, they would have 5 legislative days in which to place

them in the record. Additional questions, comments for the same

period of time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one last thing. I wanted to thank the witnesses. I thank you so very, very much. And I really mean that.

Because as I listened to all of the evidence, I have not heard one

scintilla of evidence that shows that your efforts are killing jobs.

Now, Dr. Hall, I know you are going to come forward with your

report. I see you every month, as you well know, in a joint economic committee. And I know your work. I am looking forward to

seeing those numbers. Because I agree with the chairman, we want

integrity with regard to numbers. We want to know that these jobs

are being produced. Because I have people in my district, I am telling you, in the area I live in, African American male unemployment is probably 35 to 40 percent. They are begging for jobs.

So how we define it, I would like to know. But I really want to

make sure that people get jobs and they are able to support their

family.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman.

I would only ask one closing request. Would all of you be willing

to take additional questions from Members who had them and

couldn’t give them today?

Then without objection, we would ask that all Members will have

5 days in which to submit their questions, and of course, we will

hold the record open for your answers.

And with that, we stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]
117
118
119
120

Æ