[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 82 (Tuesday, June 15, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H3981-H3990]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT SITING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2004

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 672, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4513) to provide that in preparing an environmental 
assessment or environmental impact statement required under section 102 
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to any 
action authorizing a renewable energy project, no Federal agency is 
required to identify alternative project locations or actions other 
than the proposed action and the no action alternative, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the bill 
is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 4513 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4513

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY 
                   PROJECTS.

       (a) Compliance With NEPA for Renewable Energy Projects.--
     Notwithstanding any other law, in preparing an environmental 
     assessment or environmental impact statement required under 
     section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4332) with respect to any action authorizing a 
     renewable energy project under the jurisdiction of a Federal 
     agency--
       (1) no Federal agency is required to identify alternative 
     project locations or actions other than the proposed action 
     and the no action alternative; and
       (2) no Federal agency is required to analyze the 
     environmental effects of alternative locations or actions 
     other than those submitted by the project proponent.
       (b) Consideration of Alternatives.--In any environmental 
     assessment or environmental impact statement referred to in 
     subsection (a), the Federal agency shall only identify and 
     analyze the environmental effects and potential mitigation 
     measures of--
       (1) the proposed action; and

[[Page H3982]]

       (2) the no action alternative.
       (c) Public Comment.--In preparing an environmental 
     assessment or environmental impact statement referred to in 
     subsection (a), the Federal agency shall only consider public 
     comments that specifically address the preferred action and 
     that are filed within 20 days after publication of a draft 
     environmental assessment or draft environmental impact 
     statement. Notwithstanding any other law, compliance with 
     this subsection is deemed to satisfy section 102(2) of the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) 
     and the applicable regulations and administrative guidelines 
     with respect to proposed renewable energy projects.
       (d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``renewable energy project''--
       (1) means any proposal to utilize an energy source other 
     than nuclear power or the combustion of coal, oil or natural 
     gas; and
       (2) includes but is not be limited to the use of wind, 
     solar, geothermal, or tidal forces to generate energy.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After one hour of debate on the bill, it 
shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in part A of House 
Report 108-540 if offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), 
or his designee, which shall be considered read, and shall be debatable 
for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the 
bill
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4513 expedites the development of renewable energy 
projects such as wind, tidal, solar, and geothermal by streamlining, 
but not weakening, the environmental review process.
  The bill instructs the responsible agency to review and take public 
comment only on the most feasible project. Simplifying the process is 
necessary to incentivize participation in renewable energy projects 
which are economically marginal to start.
  The bottom line is that H.R. 4513 encourages developers to commit 
capital to renewable energy projects and puts the government in 
position to put that capital to work sooner.
  NEPA requires review of reasonable alternatives, and H.R. 4513 takes 
the intelligent step of defining ``reasonable'' alternatives for 
renewable energy projects rather than having it defined through 
litigation, which those opposed to this bill may ultimately want to do.
  Since renewable energy projects are largely place-based, which means 
that they can only make use of the site where the resources are found, 
the only reasonable alternatives are, one, the proposed project, and, 
two, no action.
  This bill does nothing to change the requirement that a Federal 
agency follow the NEPA environmental review process, including 
mitigation. At the end of the NEPA process, if the agency is not 
satisfied that the project meets environmental requirements, then the 
agency official can deny the permit.
  Despite what agenda-driven extremist groups might suggest, public 
comment is not limited. Anyone can make comments on the project. It 
does require that the comments be focused on the preferred action, 
which is consistent with the NEPA regulations request that comments be 
as specific as possible.
  H.R. 4513 has no effect on any other environmental law or action. For 
example, while H.R. 4513 addresses alternatives during NEPA review of 
hydroelectric projects, it does nothing to affect any of the 
environmental safeguards otherwise found in the relicensing process.
  The bill actually improves an agency's environmental review by 
focusing on the most viable project rather than having it distracted by 
misdirected and ineffective alternatives.
  Renewable energy projects create jobs. Wind power creates 2.77 jobs 
for every megawatt produced. Solar panels create 7.24 jobs per 
megawatt, and geothermal energy projects create 5.6 jobs per megawatt. 
These projects use large amounts of highly skilled labor and can be an 
engine for local construction and manufacturing jobs that pay family 
wages.
  At the end of the day, my colleagues either support renewable energy 
production or they do not. This bill is necessary because of the costly 
litigation and bureaucratic roadblocks created by the same groups that 
oppose this bill. This bill provides the framework for power supplies 
that are affordable, reliable, secure and sustainable while at the same 
time fully protecting the quality of our environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4513. It is understandable 
that there is some confusion among Members about a bill listed on the 
schedule as the Renewable Energy Siting Improvement Act. After all, 
H.R. 4513 was recently introduced on June 4 and has not had a single 
day of hearings or markup in the Committee on Resources. Surely such a 
noble sounding bill must have a reasonable approach to address real 
problems.
  Sadly, that is not the case with H.R. 4513. If there were a truth-in-
labeling requirement under the House rules, this bill should more 
accurately be called an Act to gut the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969.
  Not only is it unwise to fundamentally rewrite NEPA, one of our most 
important environmental laws, it is unnecessary. It is unwise because 
this bill would turn NEPA on its head by allowing Federal agencies to 
avoid considering alternatives to any renewable energy project. Under 
H.R. 4513, it is up or down. Take it or leave it. It is my way or the 
highway. The Federal agency must put blinders on, even if a proposed 
energy project is next to a school or a park and there are more 
desirable alternative locations.
  It is also unwise because the public is given only 20 days to comment 
on the up or down option being promoted by the Federal agency. As a 
practical matter, this means that States, local governments and 
ordinary citizens will be effectively out of the process of Federal 
agency decision-making on energy project siting.
  It is unnecessary because there is no compelling evidence that 
complying with NEPA has thwarted responsible development of renewable 
energy in the United States.
  Of course, some renewable energy projects are controversial, 
including wind farms on the mountaintops in my home State of West 
Virginia, but they are not going to become less controversial if we 
shut the door on the local citizens as would the pending measure.
  In essence, this bill would make Federal agencies more powerful but 
less well-informed and less accountable to the States and the public 
than is currently the case under NEPA. In days gone by, such radical 
legislation would have been derided as big government by the 
conservatives in this body, but today I fear that H.R. 4513 is only 
part of a broader assault on NEPA and the public process.
  So, to my colleagues from coastal areas, beware. I say beware. Today, 
it is wind energy. Tomorrow, it could very well be offshore oil and gas 
leasing.
  Voting for this bill today sets a precedent. Pending before us is a 
feel good bill that does nothing but damage public support for 
responsible development of renewable energy. Let us not toss NEPA to 
the wind. Reject H.R. 4513.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
the time.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 4513, the Renewable Energy Project 
Siting Improvement Act of 2004. This bill will greatly aid in our 
efforts to fill out our Nation's energy portfolio in a balanced way and 
in a complete manner.
  We hear so often that we do not have enough renewable energy sources 
contributing to America's insatiable appetite for cheap and abundant 
energy. Here is an opportunity to increase the role that renewables 
play in our energy production, helping to create a safer and smarter 
national energy policy.
  The problem that our Nation has with providing abundant and cheap 
energy to manufacturing plants, to agriculture users, to schools, to 
office buildings and to homes is not that we do not have enough energy. 
We have

[[Page H3983]]

plenty. In my home State of Wyoming, we have several hundred years of 
supply of low sulfur coal, clean burning natural gas and easily 
attainable uranium, and the wind, well, it never stops blowing in 
Wyoming. So if we have plenty of energy, both fossil fuels and 
renewables, then what is the problem?
  It is simple. There are those who will stop at nothing to stop any 
development of any kind of our natural resources, no matter how 
responsibly it is done. There are those radical environmentalists that 
file so many lawsuits that it makes even an ambulance-chasing attorney 
blush.
  Through the death of a thousand cuts, these same environmentalists 
will drag out and attempt to halt any effort to provide energy that 
helps our economy grow, whether it be updating transmission lines, 
producing natural gas or coal with the newest of technologies or even 
putting up an environmentally sensitive wind farm.

                              {time}  1315

  Just last year, I introduced H.R. 793, which was included in the 
conference report of H.R. 4 and in H.R. 4503, which the House will 
consider later today. This bill would address the need for statutory 
authority to permit future alternative energy projects on the outer 
continental shelf. Such projects would include energy projects such as 
wind, wave and solar power production. But that bill, too, was opposed 
by people all across the environmental community, and it was opposed 
particularly in Nantucket where a wind farm was already planned and 
financed several miles off the coast. These are the very same people 
who claim to be strongly supportive of alternative forms of energy, but 
refuse to allow even a single windmill many miles off their coast.
  This hypocrisy is simply unacceptable. The bill before us is an 
opportunity to support the expedited, but thorough, environmental of 
renewable energy projects. H.R. 4513 merely requires the Federal agency 
focus on the actual proposed renewable energy project rather than 
conjure up a whole bunch of fantasy alternative projects in the name of 
jumping through the procedural hurdles of NEPA. The alternative energy 
project, if found to be environmentally unacceptable, will still be 
rejected by the Federal agency involved.
  It is simple. Either Members are for renewable energy or they are 
not. It is time to move forward. The approach on alternatives in this 
bill was extensively debated during the consideration of the Healthy 
Forest legislation, and it is not a novel approach. It is consistent 
with NEPA. Reducing the number of alternatives in a NEPA study is a 
necessary step to reduce costly legislation that prevents capital 
investment in renewable energy projects.
  I strongly urge Members' support of H.R. 4513 and ask that those who 
claim to be in support of renewable energy sources put their vote where 
their mouth is and support a bill that actually allows renewable energy 
projects to get off the ground and out of the courthouses.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to first start by thanking 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on 
Resources, for working with me and others to clarify that the language 
in this bill is not intended to alter the existing law and the 
moratorium as far as drilling for oil and gas in the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico and other protected areas.
  Having said that, I want to join the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rahall) in urging a negative vote on this bill. This bill has as a 
stated goal to speed up the permitting process with respect to 
alternative energy projects, and it certainly is a worthy goal. None of 
us should be afraid of trying to find better ways to have a system that 
is quicker, more efficient, and less bureaucratic. However, I think the 
bill fails to achieve that goal.
  If this bill had gone to the committee, and if the bill fails here 
and in the Senate, hopefully it will come back to committee this 
Congress or next, I think Members could sit down and try to work 
through these details; but instead, we have a bill that really guts 
much of the NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Act. This bill 
would stop forcing Federal agencies to consider alternatives which 
might be more environmentally benign in my State, Florida, or others, 
in judging a particular project.
  This law is intended to provide a voice like Florida to participate 
in a decision that balances the interest of the State against our 
energy needs and other Federal considerations. If the State does not 
have a voice in this discussion, then it is not a legitimate 
discussion.
  I know my Governor, Jeb Bush, has said limiting the comment period 
from 45 days to 20 days deprives my State of the voice it needs to have 
in this conversation about environmental impact. We need to find a way 
to make sure the State can still be heard. By eliminating the 
alternative considerations, we have also limited the States' ability to 
comment on how to balance renewable energy needs with the details of 
how to site something, where to site it, and how to construct it.
  There is a way to have a balanced, fair debate on how to make the 
National Environmental Protection Act a better law where State and 
Federal Government can work better together; but this is not the way to 
do it today, and I urge a negative vote on the bill.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just in response to my colleagues' comments on the bill, 
I am not exactly sure where the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) is going with his opposition. We have spent so much time on 
energy legislation over the past several years in the committee in 
trying to work this out; and one of the things I hear repeatedly from 
the other side of the aisle is we need to do more on renewables, we 
need to have more effort put into having alternative energy and 
renewables and environmentally friendly energy production.
  This bill does that. It streamlines the process. It in no way guts 
NEPA. It does not change a word of any of the environmental 
requirements under NEPA. It does not prevent the States from commenting 
or change the States' ability to comment on that, or the ability for 
our constituents, the citizens of this country, to comment on any of 
the proposals that are put before us. All of that stays in place. All 
it does is in reducing the number of alternatives that are required of 
someone to come forward with is it streamlines the process.
  Now, if there is something that is being built next to a school or a 
national park, and I love hearing that, then the agency with oversight 
says no. It is that simple. If somebody is that ignorant that they are 
going to come forward with a project next to a school or in the middle 
of a national park, they say no. Then they go to a different project. 
All we are trying to do is speed up the process.
  I love listening to the other side of the aisle talk about how we 
need to do more on alternative energy; and when we went through all the 
debate on the energy bill, we talked about how we need to do more on 
bringing alternative energy projects to the forefront. We are trying to 
do that in this bill, and the other side of the aisle is still opposed 
to it. I am coming to the conclusion that the other side of the aisle 
is opposed to doing anything that produces energy. If they do not 
support this, and they do not support the energy bill, what are they in 
favor of? What do they think is a good idea to produce more energy for 
this country?
  If they come up with some ideas, I will work with them. We did the 
energy bill, which was a balanced approach. We did this bill, which is 
to put more emphasis on nonpolluting energy sources; and they are still 
opposed to it. At some point they have to come forward and say we are 
in favor of something because our country is running out of energy. Our 
country is in a terrible mess on natural gas prices, on gasoline 
prices, on electricity prices. Everything is going up. We have 
shortages all over the country in different parts for different 
reasons; and everything that we propose to try to take care of that, 
they are opposed to it.
  Granted, the environmental groups have a long and storied history on 
opposing anything, and I can take that. But as Members of Congress, we 
need to step forward and be leaders and say this is how we are going to 
take care of our energy problems into the future.

[[Page H3984]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4513. Like many 
Members, I applaud the topic of the legislation. I support wind, solar, 
and other clean renewable energy projects. They are a critical part of 
a clean energy future. But renewable energy projects could have adverse 
impacts on the environment and also on public health if they are not 
sited, designed, or operated properly. This needs to be a part of the 
topic. It is about a local voice in having a say in what happens.
  That is why projects, whether they are clean or renewable or whatever 
kind of project it is, must be subject to a full environmental and 
public health review as required by the National Environmental 
Protection Act, or NEPA, a process which results in a better project.
  With all due respect to the Chair of the committee, H.R. 4513 seeks 
to remove this requirement of having a local voice in the process. 
Under the bill, any Federal agency would be exempt from considering 
alternatives when assessing the environmental impact of a project. It 
would virtually eliminate input from local communities, States, and the 
public by allowing only a 20-day comment period and only allowing 
comments on the proponents' proposal.
  Under current law, interested parties have 45 days to comment and 
analyze the environmental effects of alternative locations and actions 
of a project. The bill's intentionally broad definition of renewable 
energy leaves the door wide open to waivers for environmentally harmful 
projects, such as some solid waste incineration, hydroelectric 
projects, or LNG terminals and pipelines, not just on public lands but 
everywhere according to the OCS.
  While I salute the fact that this bill recognizes renewable energy 
development and its importance, it fails to ensure that environmentally 
important renewable energy development occurs in a timely manner, in 
the right locations, subject to the terms that fully protect the 
public's interest, and through a process that ensures ample public 
input and trust.
  Mr. Speaker, let us make sure that all energy projects meet 
environmental and public health standards. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 
4513.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a 
colloquy with the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman support the bill if we went to a 
45-day comment period?
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, if there were the kind of local processes 
that are in place now in NEPA to allow for that full discussion and 
have alternatives that are available for the public to have an input.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, it does not change that part. It only changes 
the 45 days to 20 days. If we went to a 45-day comment period, would 
the gentlewoman then support the bill?
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
would have to be assured that the other pieces for having a local say 
would be there as well. But lengthening it to the 45 days would be more 
in compliance with the way it is now.
  Mr. POMBO. And are there other things in the bill that change that 
local comment?
  Mrs. CAPPS. Yes, there are; and I would be happy to discuss it 
further.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to change it to the 45 
days if that is the gentlewoman's opposition to the bill.
  Mrs. CAPPS. That is one step. I would defer also to the ranking 
member and an ability to work that out.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the former chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to thank all of the 
Members of the House on both sides of the aisle for so many expressions 
of love and support, and most importantly, their prayers in the last 
several months. They have meant a great deal to me. I am so happy to be 
back working for the salary and doing my job for the people of 
Louisiana.
  It is a particular pleasure to join Members in a week we are taking 
up energy, which has been so much of the subject of my congressional 
career in the past 24 years; and I am pleased to join the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Pombo) and the other Members who are rising 
in support of this very worthwhile bill.
  This is about common sense. The one thing we have lacked in energy 
policy in America is common sense. We passed an amazingly complex 
energy bill, and we will vote on that conference report again this 
week, and ask our colleagues in the other body to please take it up for 
the sake of our country, at a time when we are experiencing outrageous 
gasoline prices and there are blackouts in Arizona and New Mexico which 
are having problems with their grids, and as we are experiencing large 
blackouts in the northeast which could be repeated because the energy 
bill we passed has not been signed into law and will do something to 
put in place standards for conduct on those electric grids that are 
going to keep them sound and stable in the future.
  While we sit and play party politics and silly arguments about legal 
constraints of one kind or another, our country suffers from a dearth 
of energy, and yet we continue to consume it at alarming rates and 
become more and more dependent upon people we cannot depend upon to 
send us energy.
  We have not built a refinery in this country in 25 years, and yet in 
the last 25 years we have built 751 million new automobiles and trucks 
to ply our highways. Where do Members think it comes from if we are not 
going to produce it at home? We had great debates about a bill that 
contained not only conservation provisions but new initiatives to 
produce new oil and gas and coal and other energy in this country, and 
great provisions for renewable energy. But what stands in the way to 
get renewable energy on board in this country is all of the laws which 
have been passed to stop the other energy projects.
  What our chairman has brought to us is a bill of commons sense which 
says if renewable energy projects are a priority in America, if Members 
really believe that, if that is what really is behind their energy 
policy in all of the debates this House has had, and the Senate ought 
to have real soon if we are going to pass an energy bill for our 
country, if renewable energy is really our best option, then we need to 
make sure it does not get tied up in legal knots.

                              {time}  1330

  It says that when a renewable energy project is offered under NEPA, 
that you have got two choices: You either find out that the site chosen 
is a good site and it ought to be built here or you do not build it 
there. Public comments and local government involvement is still 
permitted, in fact encouraged in that process. Nobody says you have to 
build a renewable facility under this bill. It simply says you have got 
two choices: Build it or do not build it. But do not tie it up in legal 
knots.
  What legal knots are we talking about? NEPA was constructed to make 
sure that if an oil and gas refinery was going to ever be built in this 
country, that before it was built the Environmental Protection Agency 
had to look at every other possible site it could be built at and rule 
them all out before you could build it here. If you take that view with 
every renewable facility, every energy project that was designed to 
produce energy from clean, green, renewable energy, then you are giving 
those people who do not want to see anything built the option of tying 
it up in legal knots.
  What the chairman is offering you is a bill that says for this 
priority energy, good, clean, green energy for America, at least do not 
tie that up in legal knots. Either build it where it is proposed to be 
built or decide after public comments are published and listened to and 
digested that the site is wrong and you should not build it at all and 
then go look for another site. It does not cut off public comment. It 
does not cut off total environmental review for health and safety 
reasons. It does not cut out

[[Page H3985]]

total assessment of the site chosen. It simply says, do not tie it up 
in legal knots. At least move these energy projects forward so that we 
do not have to depend so much on foreign oil and on countries we cannot 
depend upon.
  It comes down to this, folks. We either start doing some things like 
this in this country or we are still going to have to keep sending our 
sons and daughters to die in some other country protecting an oil field 
or refinery located in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or somewhere else. 
Think about it that way. Is it not time we in America value our own 
sons and daughters a little better than that? Would you not like to see 
the 35,000 people who are working in Saudi Arabia today who have been 
ordered home because there have been threats for their lives, would you 
not rather see them working in America building a wind farm or a 
renewable energy project? This bill says you can come home. You can 
work in America. We are going to start building some projects that are 
clean and green and good for this country.
  Those who vote against it are saying, We don't want to build 
anything. We would rather keep sending our sons and our daughters into 
treacherous lands in the uniform of our country to die to defend 
somebody else's oil field, somebody else's refinery. This is 
commonsense stuff. Whatever we disagreed about before, we ought not 
disagree on this one. Let us build some good green energy facilities in 
America. If you do not like where they are sited, shut them down, go 
build them somewhere else, but let us speed this process along. That is 
all that Chairman Pombo wants. That is all this country ought to at 
least get out of this debate.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First I join with my colleagues in welcoming the gentleman from 
Louisiana back to the Congress. We know he has been through quite a 
battle and our prayers and thoughts were with him. I am glad to see 
that his full vim and vigor and rhetorical flourishes are back with us 
as well, the Billy Tauzin of old. It is good to have the gentleman 
back.
  Let me say in response to some of his comments as well as my 
distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
California, as my good chairman knows and all Members of the body, I 
come from a coal-producing region of this country. Southern West 
Virginia has some of the best coal in the world. That is not just a 
parochial statement. I say to the gentleman that I certainly support 
the clean coal technology that is in the energy bill, even though it is 
peanuts compared to the tax credits and all the other goodies the oil 
industry gets, which is the main reason for my opposition to that bill. 
Nevertheless, clean coal technology is good, but we need more than lip 
service paid to clean coal technology if we want to develop alternative 
sources of energy in this country.
  And in response to the gentleman's question of what am I for, I am 
for producing that coal. I am for the advanced technologies that would 
turn coal into gas and liquid fuel. That is what we need, are credits, 
incentives, other vehicles that will make it attractive for industry to 
produce that alternative fuel from coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of 
coal in this world. It makes no sense that we do not put in true 
incentives for developing that coal. I myself quite honestly would 
rather see a surface coal mining project than a windmill farm. That can 
be effectively reclaimed. It produces jobs both in the initial mining 
and in the reclamation process and in some cases can even clean up our 
environment better than previous to the mining. It certainly can 
provide better job-creating opportunities in the long run, such as 
industrial parks, the flatland is such a premium in the terrain from 
which I come, and other related industry that comes from such a 
project.
  This current bill by eliminating the public input, by speeding it up 
so quickly that the public does not have an adequate say in the 
approval or disapproval process, in my opinion, does not add one iota 
to improving and increasing our domestic energy supplies. That is my 
problem with this bill, is that it does run roughshod over that process 
and I do not see where it is necessary to change that process, because 
that process, in this gentleman's opinion, has not hampered our energy 
production in this country. I want to see our domestic sources of 
energy explored further so we can indeed produce energy that this 
country needs without reliance upon foreign sources.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. By our 
standards, this is an extremely short bill. It is 2\1/2\ pages. I have 
read and reread and looked at this. I do not see in here where they say 
that we are eliminating the public comment. It says consider public 
comments that specifically address the preferred action that are filed 
within 20 days. If it is the time limit part, if that is where they 
have the major heartburn over this, I will go to current law and 45 
days if their opposition to the bill is based upon that. Because there 
is nothing else in here that eliminates all of the public comment that 
is currently required and accepted under NEPA. I am not sure where they 
are getting that. They might have read it in somebody's memo, but it is 
not in the bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, I would respond to the gentleman, the 
biggest problem I have is eliminating alternatives that are available 
to a project. It is either, as I understand the bill, the developer's 
alternative or no alternative to a project. That in my opinion is more 
devastating than limiting the public input time to 20 days which, the 
gentleman is correct, is the time limit in the bill. That is the 
problem that I have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Udall), a distinguished member of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, who 
has, I think, done an excellent job at raising the serious questions 
that need to be raised here, for yielding me this time. I also rise in 
opposition to this bill. As a representative of the Third District in 
New Mexico, I am a strong supporter of renewable energy projects. New 
Mexico has become home to many renewable energy projects and in our 
State renewable energy policy is very progressive. Just last year, the 
State legislature enacted a renewable portfolio standard that would 
require utilities to generate 10 percent of power from renewable energy 
sources by 2011. Our Governor and members of our congressional 
delegation have worked to make New Mexico a showcase for renewable 
energy. This can be done.
  I think most if not all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
are great proponents of renewable energy. In fact, many of them are 
cosponsors of my bill to create a Federal renewable portfolio standard. 
Last night I tried to offer that bill as an amendment to the larger 
energy bill, but it was rejected by the Committee on Rules in favor of 
a closed rule, denying the amendment. That amendment would require 
electric utilities, except co-ops, to obtain 15 percent of their power 
from renewable energy resources by 2020 and an additional 5 percent by 
2025 so that by 2025, 20 percent of retail electricity suppliers' power 
production would be derived from a portfolio of renewable energy 
resources.
  If the author of this bill being debated today is serious about 
renewable energy, why is he so hesitant to support real reform of our 
energy policy? Why will he gladly strike regulations requiring 
environmental impact statements while refusing to enact a Federal 
renewable portfolio standard or even to debate it?
  If Members think that H.R. 4513 is going to encourage and increase 
renewable energy projects, they are sorely mistaken. This bill will 
only serve to undermine the National Environmental Policy Act and to 
slash the current safeguards we have in place to ensure that new 
projects do not seriously harm our environment. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this flawed bill.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, where in the bill does it strike the need for 
environmental impact statements?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. It strikes the alternatives.
  Mr. POMBO. The gentleman's statement said, and I appreciate him 
correcting that, because there is nothing

[[Page H3986]]

in this bill that slashes the environmental impact statement 
requirements. There is nothing in this bill that slashes any of our 
environmental laws.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. So the gentleman is saying that this does 
not impact NEPA at all? I do not think that is a correct reading. I 
believe that the NEPA requirements, the NEPA alternatives, are 
seriously impacted by this piece of legislation. And why are we cutting 
out the public when it comes to renewable energy?
  Mr. POMBO. Where are we cutting out the public?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Reclaiming my time, why are we cutting out 
the public when it comes to renewable energy? Why has this side of the 
aisle refused to debate the issues that are the real issues here, 
getting our power companies to participate and go forward with 
renewable energy? It seems to me that there is a lack of wanting an 
open debate. They want a closed system. They want a closed rule. They 
do not want any amendments. I do not understand it, but I guess they 
just do not want an open debate on these issues.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Just in response to 
my colleague, there is nothing in here that eliminates the public 
comment period. There is nothing in here that reduces the public 
comment. As I have said repeatedly, if the big problem is 20 days or 45 
days to respond, then I would be happy to go to 45 days for their 
support on this bill.
  In regard to the gentleman's amendment that he offered on the big 
energy bill, he is perfectly comfortable mandating that a State adopt 
15 percent of their energy coming from a renewable resource but he is 
unwilling to do anything to make that happen. What we are trying to do 
in this particular piece of legislation is make it easier for people to 
build renewable energy projects. That right now has proven to be 
extremely difficult. In flying from the State of New Mexico, which is 
mostly public lands, into the State of Texas, you cross a line. On one 
side of the line they have renewable energy projects. On the other side 
of the line, they do not. It is the same conditions, the same wind, yet 
it is that much more difficult to build on public lands in the State of 
New Mexico than it is on private lands in the State of Texas. In my 
area of the country, in California, in my particular district, we have 
thousands of windmills. None of those are built on public land. They 
are built on private land. But you have to build windmills where the 
wind blows. You cannot just do it where somebody thinks it is a good 
idea. What we are trying to do is make it easier for people to build 
where the conditions are. In some cases that happens to be on public 
lands. That is what we are trying to do.
  I do not understand how they can keep talking about being in favor of 
renewable energy and then scramble around and try to find a reason to 
be opposed to this bill.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California 
knows we have lively debate in our committee.
  Mr. POMBO. And I never stop that.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. The gentleman should be credited for that. 
But we are not being allowed alternatives on this bill. That is exactly 
what they have done in this bill on NEPA. They have an up-or-down NEPA 
process with no alternatives. That, I submit, is a sham process.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, when one has a project, 
and I will take windmills, when one has a project and the wind blows on 
this hill and it is public land and they go to BLM and say we want to 
build a project of 200 windmills on this piece of land, the BLM looks 
at that. They go through all their environmental review, and they tell 
them yes or they tell them no. That is what we are trying to do. We do 
not want to spend 10 years in court deciding whether or not it meets 
all of the different alternatives that are put out there. If it does 
not meet all the environmental restrictions that are in place, if it 
does not have the environmental impact statement, if it does not meet 
the Endangered Species Act, all of the environmental restrictions, then 
BLM says no. It is not that complicated. You guys are just scrambling, 
looking for a reason to vote ``no.''
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we are voting ``no'' on a 
matter of principle.
  Mr. POMBO. You are voting ``no'' on politics, and you know it.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Is the gentleman going to yield to me or 
not?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. We are voting ``no'' because you have made a 
sham of the NEPA process by saying vote up or down. You know very well 
that what NEPA is all about is looking at alternatives. If you do not 
have any alternatives, you make it into a sham.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not what NEPA is 
all about. But what we are trying to do is make the system less 
bureaucratic, more efficient, force whoever is applying for the permit 
in that project to actually go at it in a way that it could become a 
reality. Right now, as the gentleman knows and I know, these projects 
are not being built on public lands and a big part of the reason is the 
bureaucracy.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall), a valued member of our Committee on Resources.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West 
Virginia for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill and express my 
opposition to the other energy bills we are considering today and 
tomorrow as part of what the Republican leadership is calling Energy 
Week.
  I would like to start with this bill, the Renewable Energy Project 
Siting Act. As the Members know, I am co-chair of the Renewable Energy 
and Energy Efficiency Caucus, so some may wonder how I can be opposed 
to the bill. And the answer is that the bill is not what it claims to 
be, and I oppose it for what it really is.
  Voting against the bill does not mean opposing the development of 
clean renewable energy technologies. Instead, it means being opposed to 
rushing the development of energy projects without first subjecting 
them to the full environmental and public health review required by the 
National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.
  In my experience and my understanding of the history, environmental 
analysis has not held up siting of a sound renewable energy project; so 
there is no need for the bill. If we look at the simple purpose of 
NEPA, it is to require that the Federal Government looks before it 
leaps to make sure that the benefits of a project do not come at the 
expense of the environment. That is a sound rule, and it should be 
maintained. So for that reason I cannot support this bill.
  At this point let me, if I might, briefly discuss the other energy 
bills on this week's agenda. There is no doubt that we in the Congress 
need to pass a comprehensive energy bill. But the bills we will be 
considering this week will not address the real problems we face today, 
high energy prices and finite supplies of fossil fuels. Instead, at 
most it merely postpones the inevitable transition from hydrocarbons 
that we need to make by subsidizing oil and gas production at the 
expense of cleaner and more efficient technologies. Drilling in the 
wildlife refuge in Alaska will not help us get out of this bind, which 
is again one of the reasons I will oppose that bill when it is 
considered tomorrow.
  And the other bill we will consider tomorrow, to make it easier for 
refineries to restart and be developed in areas of high unemployment by 
relaxing environmental regulations, will not do anything to affect oil 
prices and could create environmental hazards for the residents of 
these areas.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Republican leadership is forcing this 
debate on these bills we have already considered not only indicates a 
lack of imagination but also an admission that they have no plan to 
address rising gas prices and the energy needs of this country.
  This appears to be an exercise in politics, not policy. If we get 
serious in

[[Page H3987]]

this House about addressing our energy concerns and developing a real 
energy policy, I know we can find common ground. But this week's 
showboating is not serious. I urge my colleagues to oppose these bills.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
for yielding me this time and permitting me to speak on this.
  One would think that if our Republican colleagues were so concerned 
about renewable energy, they would not have bottled up the wind energy 
tax credit that has been allowed to expire, languishing, stopping 
projects in my district that the business community, the environmental 
community, and farmers, frankly, who would like to harvest a little 
wind, would have benefited from. The months go by. It ticks off. We 
could have had a clean, precise, up-or-down vote on extending the wind 
energy tax credit if we were serious about renewables. It would have 
passed by 400 votes on this floor if the gentleman and the Republicans 
were serious about it and not bollix it up with a whole range of other 
items. Instead, we are given a proposal that would compromise the 
development of renewable energy by narrowing the scope of NEPA.
  It is true that we have a shell of NEPA under this proposal, but it 
is basically an up-or-down vote. They seek to compromise the amount of 
time that is used. It is part of this notion of dodging the fundamental 
issues, a failure to pass a comprehensive energy bill that would really 
help renewables; that would help energy conservation; that would 
provide a vigorous debate on the floor of this House on things that 
would be able to help move the country forward. Instead, we are given 
this proposal.
  Let us talk about this proposal for a moment. Certainly, 
hydroelectric energy is a renewable resource. We have got 400 or more 
dams that were licensed in the 1950s that were never under the NEPA 
process. If this proposal that has been advocated for us today is 
approved, these 400 dams will move forward without ever having the 
benefit of the complete environmental review. It is not about just an 
up-or-down. Anybody who has worked in areas where there has been 
significant environmental controversy knows that having the full range 
of alternatives being discussed, being debated, being analyzed results 
in having stronger proposals.
  I have listened in vain to hear all of the proposals that have been 
sidetracked because renewables have been bollixed up in some sort of 
protracted environmental analysis. We are still listening. Where is the 
list of the projects? I am not aware of any. But let me say that there 
is a precise analogy to what happens sometimes on projects that have 
been hung up when we look at some that are in the infrastructure arena 
and what happens when people ignore the requirements of the law, when 
people do not engage the public, when they do not do a good job of 
studying the environmental impacts. Then we find that people push back. 
Then we find that we have inadequate proposals. Then the local politics 
intervene, and the people insist that the project be halted so it can 
be done right.
  I would respectfully suggest that enabling hydroprojects to be built 
in virtually any waterway in the United States without a full range of 
environmental analysis is not good public policy and will engender more 
negative reaction. To have 400 dams that were never involved with a 
full range to begin with go through relicensing under this proposal 
would be a mistake.
  I would hope the time will come that we can have an honest debate on 
a range of proposals that the American public deserves.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous 
consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is the ultimate Trojan horse. It is an attack 
on fundamental environmental policy dressed up to look like an effort 
to promote alternative energy.
  Alernative energy is not being held back by environmental law. There 
are many steps we could take to promote alternative energy--through tax 
incentives, through research and development spending, through 
renewable portfolio standards, through energy efficiency standards. But 
we're not taking many of those steps. Instead, we're offered this false 
choice between environmental policy and alternative energy.
  This bill would undermine the fundamental protection offered by the 
National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Under this bill, 
alternative proposals would not have to be examined. What that does is 
disempower individuals and communities, who will no longer be able to 
fully debate where and whether alternative energy projects would be 
built. Reforming NEPA is one thing and I am receptive to working 
constructively toward that end, but abandoning it is something else 
indeed and should not be allowed.
  And keep in mind that alternative energy in this bill is very broadly 
defined. Garbage incinerators would qualify; new dams would qualify. 
This bill would short-circuit review of such projects.
  I am one of the strongest supporters of alternative energy in this 
Congress. I get frustrated when folks fight against wind farms on 
aesthetic grounds, for example. But I don't think that we need to avoid 
proper environmental review on alternative energy projects.
  I urge my colleagues not to fall for this charade. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I guess he has left the floor, one such 
wind project that has been held up by lawsuits is a project off 
Nantucket Sound. The investors are there; the money is there. But there 
has been a lot of opposition to that wind project.
  I do have to agree with the gentleman from Colorado on one thing. 
Everything that has been said here today is about politics, but it is 
about politics on that side of the aisle. They want to have it both 
ways, Mr. Speaker. They want to say they support renewable energy 
production in the United States, but they do not because they look for 
anything they can find to vote against any proposal that is made going 
in the right direction to increase our renewable energy supply.
  Let us talk about this just for a minute. I want to explain the 
process of a NEPA review. There is an investor that spends millions and 
millions of dollars in order to put together a proposal to bring it to 
the point that it asks for an environmental review. Beyond that, the 
government spends millions and millions and millions of dollars going 
through this analysis, compiling the information. So if one asks for a 
project, a renewable energy project, the actual effect that this bill 
will have by reducing the number of alternatives is that it will make 
the investor come with the best environmental deal he can possibly put 
together because he has only got one shot at it. All of those millions 
have to be spent before he makes one penny. He has got one shot at it. 
Either the project is approved or it is not. Not one environmental 
aspect is changed. There is no lowering of the public comment. The only 
difference is the time. And as the chairman said, he will increase the 
scoping period to 45 days.
  But I ask you to quit trying to have it both ways. Think of America 
before you think of your own personal politics and the politics of the 
extreme environmental organizations of this country. They come right 
out and they say they do not want any production. Why do you not be 
honest and say the same. In your mind it is all about defeating George 
Bush. You are putting politics first.
  We need to produce energy for this country because we are nationally 
in jeopardy; our safety is in jeopardy; and our future and the future 
of our children is in jeopardy. So I ask the Members to support this 
bill. Allow these projects to be heard and not held up in courts of law 
for 10 or 15 years.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has 6\1/2\ minutes.

[[Page H3988]]

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to several comments made on the other side 
and in further response to what I said earlier, it is not the fact that 
the majority is trying to eliminate completely the public comment phase 
of NEPA.
  As I noted in my opening comments, they would limit that to 20 days, 
and I understand through the debate there is going to be an offer to 
extend that to 45 days; but that is not the main issue that we have 
tried to make on this side of the aisle.
  The main issue is the fact that in the pending legislation, 
alternatives to renewable energy development would be eliminated. Take 
one example from my home State of West Virginia. If a developer comes 
in and wants to develop a wind farm on a beautiful mountain site in 
Pocahontas County, then the way this bill is constructed, there are 
only two alternatives. Either the developer's initial proposal accepted 
or rejected; or a rejection, no project at all.
  There would be no process whereby alternative sites would be 
considered, whether for environmental or whether for economic or 
whether for social or whatever other reasons may come into play. The 
developer could not consider an alternative site maybe over another 
mountain ridge, because this pending bill, by wiping out the Federal 
agency's alternative to look at alternatives, strikes that completely; 
and that is the main reason that I am opposing this bill.
  We have asked for sites from the majority, for examples of sites that 
have been delayed because of unnecessary NEPA regulations. The 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) finally came up with one site. 
She mentioned a windmill farm in the Cape Cod area, and I would like to 
respond by reading from the developer himself. This is from Dennis 
Duffy, the vice president of regulatory affairs for the Cape Wind 
Associates, as quoted in the Cape Cod Times, when he said, ``The Cape 
Wind, the developer in this case, fully agrees with the Federal 
authority that offshore commercial activity should be based on a full 
and fair review of proposed developments, including consideration of 
human, economic, social, and environmental factors as well as other 
potential uses of the seas.''
  He went on, ``The ongoing review of the Cape Wind project is 
proceeding in full compliance with the provisions of both NEPA and the 
Coastal Zone Management Act and specifically includes the preparation 
of comprehensive EIS and the consideration of alternative project 
locations.''
  So the example cited by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), I 
submit, is not one that calls for the gutting of NEPA.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is unnecessary. The 
proponents have failed to produce projects that have been held up that 
would call for the enactment of this legislation.
  In addition, there have been charges from the other side that 
politics come into play on this legislation. Well, I am kind of 
shocked. The last I checked, they are in control of the agenda in this 
body. Our side is not in control of that agenda. The last time I 
checked, this is part of an energy message week, originally scheduled 
for last week but postponed until this week. And I dare say that a few 
of the bills on the agenda in this body this week, while no doubt will 
pass, will never see the light of day in the other body because more 
reasoned and judgmental Members will make decisions thereupon.
  So I think that is a false charge and one that should never have been 
brought up in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind the Members to avoid 
improper references to the Senate.
  Mr. RAHALL. I guess the Speaker was calling into question my 
describing the other body as the reason?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair was simply reminding Members that 
remarks in debate in the House may not characterize actions of the 
Senate or its Members.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I have just myself as the closing speaker. 
Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) have additional 
speakers?
  Mr. RAHALL. No. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on 
this side. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time and 
will just say I appreciate the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. 
Rahall) statement, and we have had over the last year and a half a 
chance to work together on a lot of different issues. I will tell my 
colleagues, on this bill we are trying to streamline the process and 
move it along. The gentleman's example, the letter that he read from 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think is a valuable example of what 
is wrong with the current system. If you actually look at the letter 
that the gentleman just read, he does not say in there that the process 
has not been held up by the current system. He is saying that they are 
going along with the current NEPA process and the EIS process and 
everything else, and I agree with that.
  I believe that NEPA is an extremely valuable tool for the Federal 
Government and for our bureaucrats out there to make sure that anything 
that is going forward on public lands has the minimal impact on the 
environment, and that is what we should do. But in the gentleman's 
example about someone wanting to build a windmill farm in a pristine 
site, if that is the case, if someone comes forward with a windmill 
farm in a pristine site that BLM or Park Service or Forest Service or 
anyone else says they do not want windmill farms there, they say no.
  What we are trying to avoid is multiple years of going through the 
process of studying non-viable options to that specific project, and 
that is what is considered under current law.
  If you want examples of where this is not working, all you have to do 
is look at the difference between New Mexico and Texas. Where in Texas 
they are developing alternative energy and they have windmill sites on 
the public lands, across the border in New Mexico they are not building 
them. It is not because anybody was told no, it is because the 
developers look at it and they say, I can build here and start within a 
year or two. If I try to do it on public lands, it is going to take me 
4, 5 or 10 years to go through the process. So they do not even try.
  If you are in favor of doing alternative energy projects, then you 
have to support this bill, because that is what we are doing. We are 
trying to streamline the process in order to bring those projects on.
  The gentleman from Oregon earlier talked about the wind energy tax 
credit. I am a huge proponent of that. We have windmills in my 
district. If it was not for the tax credit, they never would have been 
built. But they were built on private land. None of the public land has 
windmills on it because of the process that they have to go through. If 
the gentleman is angry about the wind energy tax credit, that is 
simple: Just tell the Senate to pass the energy bill. It is in there. 
We have passed it out of here three times already.
  So as we move forward with this legislation, I would encourage my 
colleagues on the left to take another look at it, because this truly 
is an intent to bring more alternative energy into the process and to 
make it a viable industry for all of the people that are out there 
trying to find different ways, other than fossil fuel, to power our 
country.
  Finally, I would say to my friend from West Virginia, when you are 
talking about windmills, you have to build them where the wind is. You 
cannot go to the developer and say we want you to pick an alternative 
site. That is like going to your coal miners and saying we want you to 
pick an alternative site. They have to mine where the coal is. You 
cannot tell them go look in my district in California. We do not have 
coal. In your district you do. That is why they mine for coal there.
  Well, we have wind. That is where the wind is, and that is where you 
have to build the windmills. That is the same thing on public lands, 
you have to build them where the wind blows. To try to tell them they 
have to pick an alternative site, really, you are not accomplishing 
anything if you truly want to bring alternative energy into the market.
  Finally, I would just say as we move forward with this bill, if there 
are specific issues in here that the gentleman wants to work on, I will 
work with him on it, and he knows that. If it is 20 days

[[Page H3989]]

or 45 days, we can look at the difference between doing that. But we 
really do need to move forward with this bill.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I join today with a dozen national 
environmental organizations in opposing legislation rushed to the House 
floor to gut the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as three 
other shopworn legislative assaults on conservation statutes.
  In recent months, the Republican congressional leadership has 
packaged groups of bills--often proposals rejected in the past--for 
congressional votes to highlight a partisan rhetorical theme. This 
week's emphasis is on energy policy, bringing a battery of four 
measures before the House. These measures include provisions to open 
the Arctic National Refuge for energy exploration and to provide 
liability protection for groundwater contaminants. None of the bills 
will reach the Senate; none will become law.
  While none of these proposals will become law, they reflect the 
congressional leadership's obsession with private energy speculators 
over the public interest. In recent years the Congress has rubber-
stamped Bush Administration proposals to defer stewardship of public 
lands to mining, grazing and timber interests. Today, the Leadership is 
offering an even bigger prize, the gutting of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
  The ``Renewable Energy Project Siting Improving Act'' is designed to 
weaken one of the bedrock federal environmental protection statutes, 
ostensibly to ``promote'' renewable energy. When enacted 30 years ago 
at the behest of President Nixon, NEPA was landmark legislation to 
create a coherent and predictable framework for responsible 
environmental decisions--among other things, guiding the scope and 
preparation of environmental impact statements (EIS). Many states, 
including Massachusetts, have used NEPA as models for their own 
statutes.
  The NEPA-related bill brought before the Congress today would:
  Effectively eliminate the EIS by forbidding public agencies from even 
considering alternatives to a project under review;
  Broaden the definition of a ``renewable energy project, potentially 
to include coal mines, oil shale, or even oil and gas drilling; and,
  Cut back the comment period on proposed projects to 20 days, making 
it virtually impossible for states or the public at large to 
participate.
  Given the sweeping nature of these proposed changes, it is 
particularly galling that the legislation reached the House floor 
within days of its original introduction--and without a single hour of 
committee deliberation. As the Medicare discount cards were a gift to 
the pharmaceutical industry, the energy siting bill would grant 
substantial new leverage to the energy industry developers of a wide 
range of projects, from hydroelectric dams to wood-burning plants to 
offshore wind farms.
  If this Congress has any real desire to promote renewable energy, a 
perfect place to start is with policies and standards to develop 
offshore wind power. Our oceans provide significant opportunities to 
develop renewable energy from the wind. Projects of all sizes are being 
considered up and down the east coast, as well as in Nantucket Sound--
nominated on several occasions by federal and state officials to be 
designated a national marine sanctuary, until Congress placed a 
national moratorium on that process.
  Even though the Congress has yet to authorize the use of federal 
waters for this purpose, developers are floating trial balloon projects 
in many locations. In the wake of all this interest, the consensus in 
Congress and among a number of federal, state and local officials is 
that we need new and better policies--not less scrutiny--to guide the 
siting and licensing of these projects.
  Even President Bush's Ocean Commission agrees. They were charged with 
developing practical recommendations to improve the management of our 
coast. They rightly condemn the current regulatory process led by the 
Army Corps of Engineers, but at the same time outline a number of 
constructive recommendations which could accelerate the development of 
responsible offshore wind farms. Yet not one of the commission's 
recommendations can be found in this proposal; and on occasion has the 
President's Ocean Commission cited NEPA as an issue of concern.
  At the very least, the Congress could consider my own bipartisan 
proposal, the Offshore Renewable Energy Promotion Act, which authorizes 
the use of our oceans for renewable energy projects. It creates a 
siting process that brings together states, fishermen, mariners and 
other marine interests to first identify the best sites, uses and scale 
of projects. It embraces the concept of ocean zoning, an approach 
similar to that used on land where local officials guide development to 
the best locations, protecting important natural resources and 
minimizing conflicting uses.
  The proposal I introduced with Republican Congressman Jim Saxton, 
builds on existing coastal zone planning efforts. It proposes a 
transparent bidding and licensing process that is open to all, even 
municipal or local utilities, similar to offshore oil and gas. Even the 
ocean task force established by Republican Governor Mitt Romney 
strongly criticizes the current first-come first-served approach, which 
rewards developers to exploit gaps in current law.
  It's bad enough that the Leadership insists on taking valuable floor 
time to rehash bills that the Congress has already debated and voted 
on. It's inconceivable that, in the name of renewable energy, we're 
asked to turn one of our most effective environmental statutes into one 
of the biggest loopholes in the U.S. Code.
  That's why this bill has earned the vigorous opposition of the Sierra 
Club, Friends of the Earth, the National Environmental Trust, National 
Wildlife Foundation, World Wildlife Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, Union 
of Concerned Scientists, National Resources Defense Council and 
countless others with genuine concern about environmental protection. 
On their behalf, I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting in 
opposition to H.R. 4513.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support a 
comprehensive national solution to our energy needs. In developing a 
national energy policy, it is imperative that we address cost, 
reliability, environmental impact, and consumer protection. We must 
consider ways to invest in alternative energy technologies to reduce 
dependence on foreign oil, provide stable prices for consumers and 
businesses, address global warming and bolster our nation's energy 
security. I supported the original Energy and Commerce Committee 
measure which accomplished these objectives. H.R. 4503 reinforces our 
dependency on foreign sources rather than providing the American people 
with a more secure system, H.R. 4503 exempts energy production 
companies from vital environmental regulations. Further, it repeals the 
Public Utility Holding Company Act, a law specifically designed to 
protect ratepayers from risky investments. Instead of preventing 
another California energy crisis or Enron scam, this legislation opens 
the door for more corporate fraud.
  This legislation fails to offer any meaningful assistance in the 
effort to update and modernize our nation's transmission system. 
Although Missouri was not affected by the recent blackouts, much of our 
transmission system suffers from the same outdated equipment that left 
our neighbors to the north and east in the dark.
  This legislation also fails to secure our nation's drinking water. 
Despite the fervent objections of communities who experienced the 
devastating effects of the dangerous fuel additive MTBE, this 
legislation includes a waiver of all liability for MTBE manufacturers. 
MTBE has contaminated the drinking water of hundreds of towns and 
cities across the national and this legislation forces taxpayers 
instead of polluters to pay the bill. The Senate has already voiced its 
displeasure with this provision and the Republican leadership knows 
that this bill could actually become law if they removed this harmful 
waiver.
  Today, the House is also considering H.R. 4513, the Renewable Energy 
Project Siting Improvement Act. As a strong advocate of renewable 
power, I fully support efforts to expand our reliance on renewable 
energy sources. In addition to their numerous environmental benefits, 
renewable energies also decrease our reliance on foreign sources of 
energy. Unfortunately, today's bill is actually opposed by leading 
advocates of renewable energy because it shortchanges federal, state, 
and local policymakers who want to be involved in the careful and 
correct planning of renewable energy projects. Mr. Speaker, renewable 
projects in this bill, including incinerators and dams, often leave an 
enormous footprint on surrounding communities and ecosystems. Yet this 
legislation would limit the options available to policymakers when 
considering the approval of these projects. The bill would also 
severely limit the public comment period available to local communities 
and leaders concerned about the impact of these projects. I would hope 
all of my colleagues will join me in rejecting this ill conceived 
legislation.
  This week, the House is also expected to consider H.R. 4517, the 
Refinery Revitalization Act. This bill, which was never considered by 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, creates procedures intended to 
expedite the process of restarting idle oil refineries or constructing 
new refineries. To accomplish this goal, this legislation would 
designate the Energy Department as the lead agency for all refinery 
permitting. Under this bill, local, state, and EPA permitting processes 
would be skipped. The Energy Department would be given the authority to 
impose strict deadlines for completion of permitting, and would have 
the ability to drastically limit public comment and appeals. I hope my 
colleagues reject this measure and work together for a solution that 
reduces cost to consumers without detriment to our environment.

[[Page H3990]]

  Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve an energy policy that protects our 
consumers, our environment, and our national security. I support 
legislation that will provide a real, long-term, comprehensive energy 
policy. The Democratic motion to recommit will work to lower gas 
prices, stop price gouging, and prevent future blackouts. I urge all my 
colleagues to support this sensible, long term alternative.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4513, the 
Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act.
  This bill should really be called the Nonnegotiable Energy Project 
Siting Act. This is a gift to those who would like to gut the National 
Environmental Policy Act, wrapped in the green paper of renewable 
energy.
  If the Republican leadership really cared about increasing renewable 
energy use in America, today we would be debating the extension of a 
renewable energy production tax credit, or a renewable portfolio 
standard or even national interconnection standards. Those are the 
policy priorities of the renewable energy industry, not gutting our 
national environmental laws.
  Instead of taking up those policy priorities, the Republican 
leadership has decided instead to just take the public out of the 
process. H.R. 4513 would eliminate the requirement that any alternative 
other than not building the project be considered, and it limits the 
public comment period to just 20 days. 20 days is an inadequate amount 
of time for the public to respond to complicated energy projects like 
hydroelectric dams and waste incineration, which are included in the 
bill's broad definition of ``renewable energy project.'' This bill says 
to sportsmen and Indian tribes that their comments on potentially 
harmful dam projects don't matter. This bill says to parents that their 
comments on plans to build dirty waste incinerators next to their 
children's schools don't matter.
  This is a Republican solution in search of a problem. You'll hear a 
lot about wind energy today, but the fact of the matter is that 6374 
megawatts of wind power have been developed under the current 
regulations. It is the start-stop nature of the renewable energy 
production tax credits under the Republican controlled Congress and 
White House that are making it difficult for developers to bring more 
wind energy online.
  Democrats are ready to debate long-term production tax credits. 
Democrats are ready to debate a national Renewable Portfolio Standard. 
Democrats are ready to debate interconnection standards. But instead 
the Republicans just want to eliminate public involvement in energy 
projects that impact their families.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill and preserve 
the public's right to comment on energy projects--renewable or not--
that impact their families.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). All time for debate having 
expired or been yielded back, it is now in order to consider the 
amendment made in order pursuant to House Resolution 672 in Part A of 
House Report 108-540.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Part A Amendment printed in House Report 108-540 offered by Mr. 
Pombo:
       Page 3, beginning at line 13, strike ``or the combustion 
     of''.
       Page 3, line 13, insert a comma after ``oil''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, although not in opposition to the amendment, 
I wish to claim the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from West 
Virginia will control the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo).
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment would clarify that the environmental 
review process in H.R. 4513 would not apply to oil and gas leasing 
activities. This amendment would remove any confusion about what this 
bill does or does not do.
  We have discussed this bill with the minority and they offered this 
change to the base text. After having gone back and forth, I believe 
this is a necessary change to the underlying bill to eliminate any 
confusion that there may be. By making this change, this amendment 
incorporates all of their proposed changes, short of rewriting the 
bill. Rewriting this bill would mean doing nothing to promote renewable 
energy development, which I find unacceptable.
  I support this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the gentleman from California's 
amendment clarifying the obvious fact that oil and gas and coal are not 
renewable energy sources.
  I do not think though that this is the end of the attempts to expand 
NEPA exemptions, and I urge those concerned about the integrity of 
coastal areas to remain vigilant. I would note, however, that even with 
this amendment, the pending legislation could be construed as providing 
NEPA exemptions to the construction of new hydropower dams on rivers 
and it could apply to incinerators using garbage or other waste 
products.
  As I read the text, the exemptions in this bill include hydropower 
and incinerators which general power. As the gentleman from California 
is well aware, siting of dams and incinerators are very controversial 
matters and it is important, I believe, that the public knows what we 
are doing here on the floor today to their rights.
  Mr. Speaker I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I appreciate the gentleman working with 
me on this particular amendment, but again I would say that in regard 
to his final comments there is nothing in this bill that eviscerates, 
guts, dissects or any other thing our Nation's environmental laws. All 
it does is it makes the system more efficient by reducing the number of 
alternatives that have to be looked at on a renewable energy project.
  If somebody wants to build a garbage burning incinerator in the 
middle of a national park, we both know that the answer is no before 
they even apply for a permit. But I guess trying to scare people on 
this tries to make things work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time having been yielded, pursuant to 
House Resolution 672, the previous question is ordered on the bill and 
on the further amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________