I respectfully disagree with that view.

Because it is emotional, sometimes Congress, when it acts in emotional ways, draws the wrong conclusions and makes the wrong laws.

But in terms of the definition of green jobs, I think that the American people believe that whether or not one is a union member doesn't--ought not restrict one to taxpayer money for the subsidization of green jobs.

There must also be a broader discussion about which energy fields and technologies should be captured under the umbrella of green jobs.

It is important for people to appreciate that this estimate came from the Congressional Budget Office, which has a great history of being off by hundreds and sometimes thousands of percent.

There is a great reason why we haven't, as a nation, tackled the issue of what to do with the spent fuel rods, and that is because we haven't had the political will to be able to do it.

I would point out that a recent study...shows that that bill alone would cost 600,000 jobs in this nation in the first year

We all want a clean environment. The vision that we have is to create and protect jobs across this nation.

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.

Republicans are committed to an emerging dynamic workforce focused on renewable energy and green jobs.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I begin I would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter that all members have received from the Associated Builders and Contractors regarding this issue.