Committee Statements

I would like to begin by thanking our distinguished panel of witnesses for appearing today. We appreciate that they have taken time out of their busy schedules to share their expertise and experiences with us.

Today’s hearing provides Members of this Subcommittee with the opportunity to learn more about the emerging workforce sector encompassed by the term “green jobs.” As we have already seen, Congress has played an active role in shaping the direction of this workforce.

In December 2007, the “Green Jobs Act” was signed into law as part of the Democrats’ energy package, creating a new program to provide training for workers in the energy efficiency and renewable energy fields. It came at a cost of $125 million.

More recently, the Democrats’ spending package included $750 million for competitive grants to attract workers in high growth and emerging industries. Nearly two-thirds of that has been set aside for green, “energy efficient or renewable energy industries.”

It is clear that “green jobs” – whether through government mandates and spending or legitimate market forces – are emerging as a significant part of the workforce sector. However, before devoting additional federal dollars, if any, to the emerging green jobs sector, we must be able to identify what exactly entails a green job and gauge the impact on the economy.

There must also be a broader discussion about which energy fields and technologies should be captured under the umbrella of green jobs. It would be short-sighted not to include a multitude of jobs in a broad range of industries, including energy technologies such as nuclear power and clean coal.

Looking at what Congress has already done, the Green Jobs Act defined “green jobs” as energy efficiency and renewable energy industries that include the energy-efficient building, construction, and retrofit industries; the renewable electric power industry; and the energy efficient and advanced drive train vehicle industry.

Also included in that definition were the biofuels industry; the deconstruction and materials use industries; and manufacturers that produce sustainable products using environmentally sustainable processes and materials.

However, some take a much broader definition for “green jobs”. To them it may mean more than meeting workforce needs in a green-approved environmental field but the requirement of meeting ideologically-driven social goals. A green job to them may be one that is part of a unionized workforce, that guarantees tenure, or that imposes set costs on employers through mandated wages and benefits. Most Americans would not attach these added definitions to what they believe is a green job.

In the years to come, our nation will need a new generation of educated and highly-skilled employees. And industries must be innovative and responsive to domestic and global competition. Efforts to increase energy conservation and foster job creation in the areas of green jobs are commendable and may better position the United States for the long-term. But if the value of social goals is placed at a higher premium than economic prosperity and ingenuity, none of this may be realized.

Republicans are committed to an emerging, dynamic workforce focused on renewable energy and green jobs. Holding this hearing today brings us one step closer toward a careful vetting of the definition of a green job, which is important given that this category of jobs may be significantly impacted and shaped by future federal policy.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses who may provide us with a full and complete portrait of the green job sector. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee to explore this topic further.

 

# # #