In a display of bipartisanship last week, the House of Representatives passed the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. The passage of this bill represents a critical first step forward in securing a new energy future for America as well as increasing our national security.

The bill promotes clean, renewable energy development and energy efficiency, as well as working to help reduce global warming pollution and break our dangerous addiction to oil. Furthermore, the bill will help create jobs and save Americans billions on their energy bills. At the same time, the bill will repeal $14 billion in subsidies benefiting the same oil and gas companies who continue to break profit records every quarter, sometimes in excess of 60 billion dollars!

Over 198 representatives co-sponsored this crucial piece of legislation, many of them Republicans and the bill passed with more than 60 percent of the representatives voting in favoring.

With the United States possessing just 3 percent and 2.9 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas reserves, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 recognizes that our country will never drill its way to energy independence, and thus any thinking on the contrary would simply be dangerous.

So why then did New Mexico’s junior representative, Congressman Steve Pearce, vote against this innovative piece of legislation? And why did Congressman Pearce criticize the legislation and its’ supporters in a recent New York Times article as “San Francisco Democrats [that] want to run the cars on the road with wind”?

The answers are clear: Congressman Pearce’s way of thinking is out of sync with America and out-of-step with the values of New Mexicans. Even President Bush, in his latest State of the Union address, called for decreasing America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent over 10 years.

Over the course of his tenure in Washington, the congressman has repeatedly voted to give more subsidies and tax breaks to the already cash-bloated oil and gas industry. Coincidentally, over this same time, Congressman Pearce has received almost $350,000 directly from industry lobbyists.

The congressman has repeatedly voted or supported drilling just about anywhere, including in our National Parks, Otero Mesa, the Gulf of Mexico, and on state and private lands without regard to the long-term impacts to our land, water or quality of life. Yet, the congressman votes against raising fuel efficiency standards, even though America’s cars and light trucks consume 8 million barrels of oil every day—more than 40 percent of total U.S. oil consumption. By voting against these types of bills, Congressman Pearce puts America’s national security at risk.

The congressman has habitually voted against funding clean, renewable sources of energy, citing that they are not cost-effective or that they will not reduce our oil imports.

It is apparent that the congressman hasn’t been paying attention to the strong innovation and leadership already occurring in our state.

On the south end of Albuquerque, a photovoltaic plant is being built where solar panels will be manufactured and over 1,000 jobs will be created.

The New Mexico Wind Energy Center, just northwest of Fort Sumner, which generates enough electricity to power 94,000 average-sized New Mexico homes, spurred over 200 jobs during its construction in 2003. The project will provide $40 million in economic benefits for the surrounding communities over the next 25 years.

The future of New Mexico and this great country is dependent upon strong leadership that is willing to stand up to powerful corporate lobbyists and their companies, which are fixated on amplifying profits without regard to our public lands or energy security.

Our leaders have an obligation to work for what is in the best interest of the common citizen, and of our families, neighbors, and friends, not of those who are privileged enough to flood their campaigns with the most cash. 

The question is not about have we had enough evidence or innovation to change energy policy in America, but rather have we had enough strong leadership from congress to enact that change.

            In the case of Congressman Pearce, we have not.