[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.
____________________