[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 128 (Saturday, August 4, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H9843-H9861]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER 
                             PROTECTION ACT

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Terry

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Terry:
       In title IX, at the end of Part 4 of subtitle A, add the 
     following new section and make the necessary conforming 
     amendments in the table of contents:

     SEC. 9053. GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMP TECHNOLOGY ACCELERATION 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of General Services.
       (2) General services administration facility.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``General Services Administration 
     facility'' means any building, structure, or facility, in 
     whole or in part (including the associated support systems of 
     the building, structure, or facility), that--
       (i) is constructed (including facilities constructed for 
     lease), renovated, or purchased, in whole or in part, by the 
     Administrator for use by the Federal Government; or
       (ii) is leased, in whole or in part, by the Administrator 
     for use by the Federal Government--

       (I) except as provided in subclause (II), for a term of not 
     less than 5 years; or
       (II) for a term of less than 5 years, if the Administrator 
     determines that use of cost-effective technologies and 
     practices would result in the payback of expenses.

       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``General Services Administration 
     facility'' includes any group of buildings, structures, or 
     facilities described in subparagraph (A) (including the 
     associated energy-consuming support systems of the buildings, 
     structures, and facilities).
       (C) Exemption.--The Administrator may exempt from the 
     definition of ``General Services Administration facility'' 
     under this paragraph a building, structure, or facility that 
     meets the requirements of section 543(c) of Public Law 95-619 
     (42 U.S.C. 8253(c)).
       (b) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     program to accelerate the use of geothermal heat pumps at 
     General Services Administration facilities.
       (2) Requirements.--The program established under this 
     subsection shall--
       (A) ensure centralized responsibility for the coordination 
     of geothermal heat pump recommendations, practices, and 
     activities of all relevant Federal agencies;
       (B) provide technical assistance and operational guidance 
     to applicable tenants to achieve the goal identified in 
     subsection (c)(2)(B)(ii); and
       (C) establish methods to track the success of Federal 
     departments and agencies with respect to that goal.
       (c) Accelerated Use of Geothermal Heat Pump Technologies.--
       (1) Review.--
       (A) In general.--As part of the program under this section, 
     not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall conduct a review of--
       (i) current use of geothermal heat pump technologies in 
     General Services Administration facilities; and
       (ii) the availability to managers of General Services 
     Administration facilities of geothermal heat pumps.
       (B) Requirements.--The review under subparagraph (A) 
     shall--
       (i) examine the use of geothermal heat pumps by Federal 
     agencies in General Services Administration facilities; and
       (ii) as prepared in consultation with the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, identify geothermal heat 
     pump technology standards that could be used for all types of 
     General Services Administration facilities.
       (2) Replacement.--
       (A) In general.--As part of the program under this section, 
     not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall establish, using available 
     appropriations, a geothermal heat pump technology 
     acceleration program to achieve maximum feasible replacement 
     of existing heating and cooling technologies with geothermal 
     heat pump technologies in each General Services 
     Administration facility.
       (B) Acceleration plan timetable.--
       (i) In general.--To implement the program established under 
     subparagraph (A), not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish a 
     timetable, including milestones for specific activities 
     needed to replace existing heating and cooling technologies 
     with geothermal heat pump technologies, to the maximum extent 
     feasible (including at the maximum rate feasible), at each 
     General Services Administration facility.
       (ii) Goal.--The goal of the timetable under clause (i) 
     shall be to complete, using available appropriations, maximum 
     feasible replacement of existing heating and cooling 
     technologies with geothermal heat pump technologies by not 
     later than the date that is 5 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (d) General Services Administration Facility Geothermal 
     Heat Pump Technologies and Practices.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall--
       (1) ensure that a manager responsible for accelerating the 
     use of geothermal heat pump technologies is designated for 
     each General Services Administration facility geothermal heat 
     pump technologies and practices facility; and
       (2) submit to Congress a plan, to be implemented to the 
     maximum extent feasible (including at the maximum rate 
     feasible) using available appropriations, by not later than 
     the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, that--
       (A) includes an estimate of the funds necessary to carry 
     out this section;
       (B) describes the status of the implementation of 
     geothermal heat pump technologies and practices at General 
     Services Administration facilities, including--
       (i) the extent to which programs, including the program 
     established under subsection (b), are being carried out in 
     accordance with this Act; and
       (ii) the status of funding requests and appropriations for 
     those programs;
       (C) identifies within the planning, budgeting, and 
     construction processes, all types of General Services 
     Administration facility-related procedures that inhibit new 
     and existing General Services Administration facilities from 
     implementing geothermal heat pump technologies;
       (D) recommends language for uniform standards for use by 
     Federal agencies in implementing geothermal heat pump 
     technologies and practices;
       (E) in coordination with the Office of Management and 
     Budget, reviews the budget process for capital programs with 
     respect to alternatives for--
       (i) permitting Federal agencies to retain all identified 
     savings accrued as a result of the use of geothermal heat 
     pump technologies; and
       (ii) identifying short- and long-term cost savings that 
     accrue from the use of geothermal heat pump technologies and 
     practices;
       (F) achieves substantial operational cost savings through 
     the application of geothermal heat pump technologies; and
       (G) includes recommendations to address each of the 
     matters, and a plan for implementation of each 
     recommendation, described in subparagraphs (A) through (F).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this section, to remain available until expended.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment that 
encourages government buildings to use geothermal technology.
  Geothermal technology is simple; when you dig down and use the energy 
within and beneath the Earth, you save energy. For example, in 
Nebraska, and all over, you can dig down 100 feet where the temperature 
is a consistent 60 degrees. So therefore, for example, at this time of 
year when it's in the 90s and high humidity, instead of cooling the air 
from 100 degrees to 72, you're

[[Page H9844]]

bringing it up from 60 degrees to 72. You save anywhere from 60 percent 
and as high as up to 80 percent, depending on the time of year, on 
energy costs to heat and cool and also to create hot water. This is the 
major use of energy within buildings, whether commercial or 
residential, and I think government should be the leader in this.
  Simple amendment. I appreciate the help and encouragement I have 
received on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Will the gentleman hold for just one moment, please?
  Mr. TERRY. I can keep talking.
  Reclaiming my time from the gentleman from Virginia, while the 
technology to implement geothermal, for example, a smaller building may 
increase the building cost by a mere $3,000 or $4,000, studies have 
shown that for commercial or residential buildings that they will 
recoup those costs within a matter of 3 years because of the energy 
savings by using the Earth's own energy to heat and cool.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman 
from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I regret the 
delay.
  Let me commend the gentleman for two things. First of all, for his 
very helpful work as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
and secondly, for bringing this amendment before the body today.
  Geothermal heat pump technology is a promising means of meeting 
heating and cooling needs with high energy efficiency. It uses the 
Earth itself, as the gentleman has described, as a kind of a heat 
battery, but also as a natural coolant during the summertimes. And that 
is a natural battery and also a natural coolant upon which we can draw 
with great efficiency.
  The amendment would direct the Federal Government to take the lead in 
adopting geothermal heat pump technologies. It would have the 
government lead by example, and I think it is an excellent addition to 
the measure. We are pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the gentleman's acceptance 
of this, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the committee of jurisdiction 
on the minority side, we do not oppose the amendment, we support it, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
       In title IX, after subtitle F, insert the following new 
     subtitle and make the necessary conforming changes in the 
     table of contents:

            Subtitle G--Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard

     SEC. 9600. FEDERAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.

       (a) In General.--Title VI of the Public Utility Regulatory 
     Policies Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 610. FEDERAL RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Biomass.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `biomass' means--
       ``(i) cellulosic (plant fiber) organic materials from a 
     plant that is planted for the purpose of being used to 
     produce energy; or
       ``(ii) nonhazardous, plant or algal matter that is derived 
     from any of the following:

       ``(I) An agricultural crop, crop byproduct or residue 
     resource.
       ``(II) Waste such as landscape or right-of-way trimmings 
     (but not including municipal solid waste, recyclable 
     postconsumer waste paper, painted, treated, or pressurized 
     wood, wood contaminated with plastic or metals).
       ``(III) Gasified animal waste.
       ``(IV) Landfill methane.

       ``(B) National forest lands and certain other public 
     lands.--With respect to organic material removed from 
     National Forest System lands or from public lands 
     administered by the Secretary of the Interior, the term 
     `biomass' covers only organic material from (i) ecological 
     forest restoration; (ii) pre-commercial thinnings; (iii) 
     brush; (iv) mill residues; and (v) slash.
       ``(C) Exclusion of certain federal lands.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (B), material or matter that would otherwise 
     qualify as biomass are not included in the term biomass if 
     they are located on the following Federal lands:
       ``(i) Federal land containing old growth forest or late 
     successional forest unless the Secretary of the Interior or 
     the Secretary of Agriculture determines that the removal of 
     organic material from such land is appropriate for the 
     applicable forest type and maximizes the retention of late-
     successional and large and old growth trees, late-
     successional and old growth forest structure, and late-
     successional and old growth forest composition.
       ``(ii) Federal land on which the removal of vegetation is 
     prohibited, including components of the National Wilderness 
     Preservation System.
       ``(iii) Wilderness Study Areas.
       ``(iv) Inventoried roadless areas.
       ``(v) Components of the National Landscape Conservation 
     System.
       ``(vi) National Monuments.
       ``(2) Eligible facility.--The term `eligible facility' 
     means--
       ``(A) a facility for the generation of electric energy from 
     a renewable energy resource that is placed in service on or 
     after January 1, 2001; or
       ``(B) a repowering or cofiring increment.
       ``(3) Existing facility.--The term `existing facility' 
     means a facility for the generation of electric energy from a 
     renewable energy resource that is not an eligible facility.
       ``(4) Incremental hydropower.--The term `incremental 
     hydropower' means additional generation that is achieved from 
     increased efficiency or additions of capacity made on or 
     after January 1, 2001, or the effective date of an existing 
     applicable State renewable portfolio standard program at a 
     hydroelectric facility that was placed in service before that 
     date.
       ``(5) Indian land.--The term `Indian land' means--
       ``(A) any land within the limits of any Indian reservation, 
     pueblo, or rancheria;
       ``(B) any land not within the limits of any Indian 
     reservation, pueblo, or rancheria title to which was on the 
     date of enactment of this paragraph either held by the United 
     States for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or 
     held by any Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction 
     by the United States against alienation;
       ``(C) any dependent Indian community; or
       ``(D) any land conveyed to any Alaska Native corporation 
     under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
       ``(6) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any 
     Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 
     community, including any Alaskan Native village or regional 
     or village corporation as defined in or established pursuant 
     to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et 
     seq.), which is recognized as eligible for the special 
     programs and services provided by the United States to 
     Indians because of their status as Indians.
       ``(7) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means 
     electric energy generated by a renewable energy resource.
       ``(8) Renewable energy resource.--The term `renewable 
     energy resource' means solar (including solar water heating), 
     wind, ocean, tidal, geothermal energy, biomass, landfill gas, 
     or incremental hydropower.
       ``(9) Repowering or cofiring increment.--The term 
     `repowering or cofiring increment' means--
       ``(A) the additional generation from a modification that is 
     placed in service on or after January 1, 2001, to expand 
     electricity production at a facility used to generate 
     electric energy from a renewable energy resource or to cofire 
     biomass that was placed in service before the date of 
     enactment of this section; or
       ``(B) the additional generation above the average 
     generation in the 3 years preceding the date of enactment of 
     this section at a facility used to generate electric energy 
     from a renewable energy resource or to cofire biomass that 
     was placed in service before the date of enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(10) Retail electric supplier.--The term `retail electric 
     supplier' means a person that sells electric energy to 
     electric consumers (other than consumers in Hawaii) that sold 
     not less than 1,000,000 megawatt-hours of electric energy to 
     electric consumers for purposes other than resale during the 
     preceding calendar year; except that such term does not 
     include the United States, a State or any political 
     subdivision of a State, or any agency, authority, or 
     instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, or a 
     rural electric cooperative.
       ``(11) Retail electric supplier's base amount.--The term 
     `retail electric supplier's base amount' means the total 
     amount of electric energy sold by the retail electric 
     supplier, expressed in terms of kilowatt hours, to electric 
     customers for purposes other than resale during the most 
     recent calendar year for which information is available, 
     excluding--
       ``(A) electric energy that is not incremental hydropower 
     generated by a hydroelectric facility; and
       ``(B) electricity generated through the incineration of 
     municipal solid waste.

[[Page H9845]]

       ``(b) Compliance.--For each calendar year beginning in 
     calendar year 2010, each retail electric supplier shall meet 
     the requirements of subsection (c) by submitting to the 
     Secretary, not later than April 1 of the following calendar 
     year, one or more of the following:
       ``(1) Federal renewable energy credits issued under 
     subsection (e).
       ``(2) Federal energy efficiency credits issued under 
     subsection (i), except that Federal energy efficiency credits 
     may not be used to meet more than 27 percent of the 
     requirements of subsection (c) in any calendar year.
       ``(3) Certification of the renewable energy generated and 
     electricity savings pursuant to the funds associated with 
     State compliance payments as specified in subsection 
     (e)(3)(G).
       ``(4) Alternative compliance payments pursuant to 
     subsection (j).
       ``(c) Required Annual Percentage.--For calendar years 2010 
     through 2039, the required annual percentage of the retail 
     electric supplier's base amount that shall be generated from 
     renewable energy resources, or otherwise credited towards 
     such percentage requirement pursuant to subsection (d), shall 
     be the percentage specified in the following table:

                                                        Required annual
``Calendar Years                                             percentage
    2010...........................................................2.75
    2011...........................................................2.75
    2012...........................................................3.75
    2013............................................................4.5
    2014............................................................5.5
    2015............................................................6.5
    2016............................................................7.5
    2017...........................................................8.25
    2018..........................................................10.25
    2019..........................................................12.25
    2020 and thereafter through 2039................................ 15
       ``(d) Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Credits.--(1) 
     A retail electric supplier may satisfy the requirements of 
     subsection (b)(1) through the submission of Federal renewable 
     energy credits--
       ``(A) issued to the retail electric supplier under 
     subsection (e);
       ``(B) obtained by purchase or exchange under subsection (f) 
     or (g); or
       ``(C) borrowed under subsection (h).
       ``(2) A retail electric supplier may satisfy the 
     requirements of subsection (b)(2) through the submission of 
     Federal energy efficiency credits issued to the retail 
     electric supplier obtained by purchase or exchange pursuant 
     to subsection (i).''
       ``(3) A Federal renewable energy credit may be counted 
     toward compliance with subsection (b)(1) only once. A Federal 
     energy efficiency credit may be counted toward compliance 
     with subsection (b)(2) only once.
       ``(e) Issuance of Credits.--(1) The Secretary shall 
     establish by rule, not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, a program to verify and issue 
     Federal renewable energy credits to generators of renewable 
     energy, track their sale, exchange and retirement and to 
     enforce the requirements of this section. To the extent 
     possible, in establishing such program, the Secretary shall 
     rely upon existing and emerging State or regional tracking 
     systems that issue and track non-Federal renewable energy 
     credits.
       ``(2) An entity that generates electric energy through the 
     use of a renewable energy resource may apply to the Secretary 
     for the issuance of renewable energy credits. The applicant 
     must demonstrate that the electric energy will be transmitted 
     onto the grid or, in the case of a generation offset, that 
     the electric energy offset would have otherwise been consumed 
     on site. The application shall indicate--
       ``(A) the type of renewable energy resource used to produce 
     the electricity;
       ``(B) the location where the electric energy was produced; 
     and
       ``(C) any other information the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), and 
     (D), the Secretary shall issue to a generator of electric 
     energy one Federal renewable energy credit for each kilowatt 
     hour of electric energy generated by the use of a renewable 
     energy resource at an eligible facility.
       ``(B) For purpose of compliance with this section, Federal 
     renewable energy credits for incremental hydropower shall be 
     based, on the increase in average annual generation resulting 
     from the efficiency improvements or capacity additions. The 
     incremental generation shall be calculated using the same 
     water flow information used to determine a historic average 
     annual generation baseline for the hydroelectric facility and 
     certified by the Secretary or the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission. The calculation of the Federal renewable energy 
     credits for incremental hydropower shall not be based on any 
     operational changes at the hydroelectric facility not 
     directly associated with the efficiency improvements or 
     capacity additions.
       ``(C) The Secretary shall issue 2 renewable energy credits 
     for each kilowatt hour of electric energy generated and 
     supplied to the grid in that calendar year through the use of 
     a renewable energy resource at an eligible facility located 
     on Indian land. For purposes of this paragraph, renewable 
     energy generated by biomass cofired with other fuels is 
     eligible for two credits only if the biomass was grown on 
     such land.
       ``(D) For electric energy generated by a renewable energy 
     resource at an on-site eligible facility and used to offset 
     part or all of the customer's requirements for electric 
     energy, the Secretary shall issue 3 renewable energy credits 
     to such customer for each kilowatt hour generated.
       ``(E) If both a renewable energy resource and a non-
     renewable energy resource are used to generate the electric 
     energy, the Secretary shall issue the Federal renewable 
     energy credits based on the proportion of the renewable 
     energy resources used.
       ``(F) When a generator has sold electric energy generated 
     through the use of a renewable energy resource to a retail 
     electric supplier under a contract for power from an existing 
     facility, and the contract has not determined ownership of 
     the Federal renewable energy credits associated with such 
     generation, the Secretary shall issue such Federal renewable 
     energy credits to the retail electric supplier for the 
     duration of the contract.
       ``(G) Payments made by a retail electricity supplier, 
     directly or indirectly, to a State for compliance with a 
     State renewable portfolio standard program, or for an 
     alternative compliance mechanism, shall be valued for the 
     purpose of subsection (b)(2) based on the amount of electric 
     energy generation from renewable resources and electricity 
     savings that results from those payments.
       ``(f) Existing Facilities.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     a retail electric supplier that acquires Federal renewable 
     energy credits associated with the generation of renewable 
     energy from an existing facility may use such credits for 
     purpose of its compliance with subsection (b)(1). Such 
     credits may not be sold or traded for the purpose of 
     compliance by another retail electric supplier.
       ``(g) Renewable Energy Credit Trading.--A Federal renewable 
     energy credit, may be sold, transferred or exchanged by the 
     entity to whom issued or by any other entity who acquires the 
     Federal renewable energy credit, except for those renewable 
     energy credits from existing facilities. A Federal renewable 
     energy credit for any year that is not submitted to satisfy 
     the minimum renewable generation requirement of subsection 
     (c) for that year may be carried forward for use pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(1) within the next 3 years.
       ``(h) Renewable Energy Credit Borrowing.--At any time 
     before the end of calendar year 2012, a retail electric 
     supplier that has reason to believe it will not be able to 
     fully comply with subsection (b) may--
       ``(1) submit a plan to the Secretary demonstrating that the 
     retail electric supplier will earn sufficient Federal 
     renewable energy credits within the next 3 calendar years 
     which, when taken into account, will enable the retail 
     electric supplier to meet the requirements of subsection (b) 
     for calendar year 2012 and the subsequent calendar years 
     involved; and
       ``(2) upon the approval of the plan by the Secretary, apply 
     Federal renewable energy credits that the plan demonstrates 
     will be earned within the next 3 calendar years to meet the 
     requirements of subsection (b) for each calendar year 
     involved.
     The retail electric supplier must repay all of the borrowed 
     Federal renewable energy credits by submitting an equivalent 
     number of Federal renewable energy credits, in addition to 
     those otherwise required under subsection (b), by calendar 
     year 2020 or any earlier deadlines specified in the approved 
     plan. Failure to repay the borrowed Federal renewable energy 
     credits shall subject the retail electric supplier to civil 
     penalties under subsection (i) for violation of the 
     requirements of subsection (b) for each calendar year 
     involved.
       ``(i) Energy Efficiency Credits.--
       ``(1) Defintions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) Customer facility savings.--The term `customer 
     facility savings' means a reduction in end-use electricity at 
     a facility of an end-use consumer of electricity served by a 
     retail electric supplier, as compared to----
       ``(i) consumption at the facility during a base year;
       ``(ii)i n the case of new equipment (regardless of whether 
     the new equipment replaces existing equipment at the end of 
     the useful life of the existing equipment), consumption by 
     the new equipment of average efficiency; or
       ``(iii) in the case of a new facility, consumption at a 
     reference facility.
       ``(B) Electricity savings.--The term `electricity savings' 
     means----
       ``(i) customer facility savings of electricity consumption 
     adjusted to reflect any associated increase in fuel 
     consumption at the facility;
       ``(ii) reductions in distribution system losses of 
     electricity achieved by a retail electricity distributor, as 
     compared to losses attributable to new or replacement 
     distribution system equipment of average efficiency (as 
     defined by the Secretary by regulation);
       ``(iii) the output of new combined heat and power systems, 
     to the extent provided under paragraph (5); and
       ``(iv) recycled energy savings.
       ``(C) Qualifying electricty savings.--The term `qualifying 
     electricity savings' means electricity saving that meet the 
     measurement and verification requirements of paragraph (4).
       ``(D) Recycled energy savings.--The term `recycled energy 
     savings' means a reduction in electricity consumption that is 
     attributable to electrical or mechanical power, or both, 
     produced by modifying an industrial or commercial system that 
     was in operation before July 1, 2007, in order to recapture 
     energy that would otherwise be wasted.

[[Page H9846]]

       ``(2) Petition.--The Governor of a State may petition the 
     Secretary to allow up to 25 percent of the requirements of a 
     retail electric supplier under subsection (c) in the State to 
     be met by submitting Federal energy efficiency credits issued 
     pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(3) Issuance of credits.--
       ``(A) The Secretary shall issue energy efficiency credits 
     in States described in paragraph (2) in accordance with this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) In accordance with regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall issue credits for----
       ``(i) qualified electricity savings achieved by a retail 
     electric supplier in a calendar year; and
       ``(ii) qualified electricity savings achieved by other 
     entities (including State agencies) if ----

       ``(I) the measures used to achieve the qualifying 
     electricity savings were installed or place in operation by 
     the entity seeking the credit or the designated agent of the 
     entity; and
       ``(II) no retail electric supplier paid a substantial 
     portion of the cost of achieving the qualified electricity 
     savings (unless the utility has waived any entitlement to the 
     credit).

       ``(4) Measurement and verification ofelectricty savings.--
     Not later than June 30, 2009, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations regarding the measurement and verification of 
     electricity savings under this subsection, including 
     regulations covering----
       ``(A) procedures and standards for defining and measuring 
     electricity savings that will be eligible to receive credits 
     under paragraph (3), which shall----
       ``(i) specify the types of energy efficiency and energy 
     conservation that will be eligible for the credits;
       ``(ii) require that energy consumption for customer 
     facilities or portions of facilities in the applicable base 
     and current years be adjusted, as appropriate, to account for 
     changes in weather, level of production, and building area;
       ``(iii) account for the useful life of electricity savings 
     measures;
       ``(iv) include specified electricity savings values for 
     specific, commonly-used efficiency measures;
       ``(v) specify the extent to which electricity savings 
     attributable to measures carried out before the date of 
     enactment of this section are eligible to receive credits 
     under this subsection; and
       ``(vi) exclude electricity savings that (I) are not 
     properly attributable to measures carried out by the entity 
     seeking the credit; or (II) have already been credited under 
     this section to another entity;
       ``(B) procedures and standards for third-party verification 
     of reported electricity savings; and
       ``(C) such requirements for information, reports, and 
     access to facilities as may be necessary to carry out this 
     subsection.
       ``(5) Combined heat and power.--Under regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary, the increment of electricity 
     output of a new combined heat and power system that is 
     attributable to the higher efficiency of the combined system 
     (as compared to the efficiency of separate production of the 
     electric and thermal outputs), shall be considered 
     electricity savings under this subsection.
       ``(6) State delegation.--On application of the Governor of 
     a State, the Secretary may delegate to the State the 
     administration of this subsection in the State if the 
     Secretary determines that the State is willing and able to 
     carry out the functions described in this subsection.''
       ``(j) Enforcement.--A retail electric supplier that does 
     not comply with subsection (b) shall be liable for the 
     payment of a civil penalty. That penalty shall be calculated 
     on the basis of the number of kilowatt-hours represented by 
     the retail electric supplier's failure to comply with 
     subsection (b), multiplied by the lesser of 4.5 cents 
     (adjusted for inflation for such calendar year, based on the 
     Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator) or 300 
     percent of the average market value of Federal renewable 
     energy credits and energy efficiency credits for the 
     compliance period. Any such penalty shall be due and payable 
     without demand to the Secretary as provided in the 
     regulations issued under subsection (e).
       ``(k) Alternative Compliance Payments.--The Secretary shall 
     accept payment equal to 200 percent of the average market 
     value of Federal renewable energy credits and Federal energy 
     efficiency credits for the applicable compliance period or 
     3.0 cents per kilowatt hour adjusted on January 1 of each 
     year following calendar year 2006 based on the Gross Domestic 
     Product Implicit Price Deflator, as a means of compliance 
     under subsection (b)(4).
       ``(l) Information Collection.--The Secretary may collect 
     the information necessary to verify and audit--
       ``(1) the annual renewable energy generation of any retail 
     electric supplier, Federal renewable energy credits submitted 
     by a retail electric supplier pursuant to subsection (b)(1) 
     and Federal energy efficiency credits;
       ``(2) annual electricity savings achieved pursuant to 
     subsection (i);
       ``(3) the validity of Federal renewable energy credits 
     submitted for compliance by a retail electric supplier to the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(4) the quantity of electricity sales of all retail 
     electric suppliers.
       ``(m) Environmental Savings Clause.--Incremental hydropower 
     shall be subject to all applicable environmental laws and 
     licensing and regulatory requirements.
       ``(n) State Programs.--(1) Nothing in this section 
     diminishes any authority of a State or political subdivision 
     of a State to--
       ``(A) adopt or enforce any law or regulation respecting 
     renewable energy or energy efficiency, including but not 
     limited to programs that exceed the required amount of 
     renewable energy or energy efficiency under this section, or
       ``(B) regulate the acquisition and disposition of Federal 
     renewable energy credits and Federal energy efficiency 
     credits by electric suppliers.
     No law or regulation referred to in subparagraph (A) shall 
     relieve any person of any requirement otherwise applicable 
     under this section. The Secretary, in consultation with 
     States having renewable energy programs and energy efficiency 
     programs, shall preserve the integrity of such State 
     programs, including programs that exceed the required amount 
     of renewable energy and energy efficiency under this section, 
     and shall facilitate coordination between the Federal program 
     and State programs.
       ``(2) In the rule establishing the program under this 
     section, the Secretary shall incorporate common elements of 
     existing renewable energy and energy efficiency programs, 
     including State programs, to ensure administrative ease, 
     market transparency and effective enforcement. The Secretary 
     shall work with the States to minimize administrative burdens 
     and costs to retail electric suppliers.
       ``(o) Recovery of Costs.--An electric utility whose sales 
     of electric energy are subject to rate regulation, including 
     any utility whose rates are regulated by the Commission and 
     any State regulated electric utility, shall not be denied the 
     opportunity to recover the full amount of the prudently 
     incurred incremental cost of renewable energy and energy 
     efficiency obtained to comply with the requirements of 
     subsection (b). For purposes of this subsection, the 
     definitions in section 3 of this Act shall apply to the terms 
     electric utility, State regulated electric utility, State 
     agency, Commission, and State regulatory authority.
       ``(p) Program Review.--The Secretary shall enter into a 
     contract with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
     comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the program 
     established under this section, within 8 years of enactment 
     of this section. The study shall include an evaluation of--
       ``(1) the effectiveness of the program in increasing the 
     market penetration and lowering the cost of the eligible 
     renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies;
       ``(2) the opportunities for any additional technologies and 
     sources of renewable energy and energy efficiency emerging 
     since enactment of this section;
       ``(3) the impact on the regional diversity and reliability 
     of supply sources, including the power quality benefits of 
     distributed generation;
       ``(4) the regional resource development relative to 
     renewable potential and reasons for any under investment in 
     renewable resources; and
       ``(5) the net cost/benefit of the renewable portfolio 
     standard to the national and State economies, including 
     retail power costs, economic development benefits of 
     investment, avoided costs related to environmental and 
     congestion mitigation investments that would otherwise have 
     been required, impact on natural gas demand and price, 
     effectiveness of green marketing programs at reducing the 
     cost of renewable resources.
     The Secretary shall transmit the results of the evaluation 
     and any recommendations for modifications and improvements to 
     the program to Congress not later than January 1, 2016.
       ``(q) State Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Account 
     Program.--(1) The Secretary shall establish, not later than 
     December 31, 2009, a State renewable energy account program.
       ``(2) All money collected by the Secretary from the 
     alternative compliance payments under subsection (k) shall be 
     deposited into the State renewable energy and energy 
     efficiency account established pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(3) Proceeds deposited in the State renewable energy and 
     energy efficiency account shall be used by the Secretary, 
     subject to annual appropriations, for a program to provide 
     grants to the State agency responsible for administering a 
     fund to promote renewable energy generation and energy 
     efficiency for customers of the state, or an alternative 
     agency designated by the state, or if no such agency exists, 
     to the state agency developing State energy conservation 
     plans under section 363 of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 6322) for the purposes of promoting renewable 
     energy production and providing energy assistance and 
     weatherization services to low-income consumers.
       ``(4) The Secretary may issue guidelines and criteria for 
     grants awarded under this subsection. At least 75 percent of 
     the funds provided to each State shall be used for promoting 
     renewable energy production and energy efficiency through 
     grants, production incentives or other state-approved funding 
     mechanisms. The funds shall be allocated to the States on the 
     basis of retail electric sales subject to the Renewable 
     Portfolio Standard under this section or through voluntary 
     participation. State agencies receiving grants under this 
     section shall maintain such records and evidence of 
     compliance as the Secretary may require.''.

[[Page H9847]]

       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for such 
     title is amended by adding the following new item at the end:

``Sec. 610. Federal renewable portfolio standard''.
       (c) Sunset.--Section 610 of such title and the item 
     relating to such section 610 in the table of contents for 
     such title are each repealed as of December 31, 2039.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to establish a 15 percent national renewable electricity 
standard by the year 2020. In doing so, utilities are permitted to meet 
up to 4 percent of this requirement through energy efficiency measures. 
This amendment will save consumers money, stimulate our economy, and 
strengthen our national security.
  The aim of this amendment may seem far reaching, but the mechanism 
for doing so is not. A 15 percent national renewable electricity 
standard by the year 2020 is essential to our national security future.
  Equally important to this debate, however, and contrary from what you 
hear from our opponents, the RES is absolutely achievable. In fact, 
almost half of the States of the Union already have an RES in place, 
but the full potential for renewable electricity will be left 
unrealized without the adoption of a Federal program to enhance the 
efforts of these States. We must enact a Federal RES, and we must do so 
now.
  Momentum has been building, as evidenced by the fact that many of the 
RES standards enacted by States already have been exceeded. 
Subsequently, the standards have been increased. A national RES has 
passed the Senate three times. It has proven itself effective, 
efficient and popular. And it's time for the New Direction Congress to 
bring those benefits to the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that 
we have an additional 10 minutes on this amendment equally divided by 
the minority and the majority because we have lots of speakers on both 
sides.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment and I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First let me say that we're not opposed to all renewable portfolio 
standards, but we are opposed to this one for a number of reasons. 
First of all, it only applies to investor-owned electric utilities. It 
doesn't apply to electric co-ops. It doesn't apply to municipal 
utilities. It just applies to investor-owned electric utilities. That's 
one of the reasons that the Edison Electric Institute is opposed to 
this amendment.
  It doesn't meet the standards that have been put out for renewable 
portfolio standards. It should apply to all utilities. This one 
doesn't. It should complement and not preempt State programs. This one 
doesn't. It should be technology neutral. This one is not technology 
neutral. It should provide credit for early action. This doesn't do 
that. It should allow for a national trading mechanism, including 
standardized monitoring, verification and distribution of credits. It 
doesn't do that. And it should include specific provisions assuring 
cost recovery for retail electric providers. It doesn't do that. It 
doesn't include nuclear as a renewable energy, and we think that it 
should. We think all hydros should be included. This one doesn't.
  So, it is certainly worthy of debate, and I support it being made in 
order to be debated on the floor, but I would hope that we would oppose 
it when it comes time for the vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to my Republican cosponsor, Todd Platts, who has worked very, 
very hard on this amendment. And I would emphasize that this is a 
bipartisan amendment, and we have worked all along on it together.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I 
certainly appreciate his leadership on this very important issue. I do 
appreciate the ranking member's issues he has raised and that perhaps 
this amendment doesn't go far enough in what it includes in the type of 
renewable energy that is acknowledged.
  I would say that this is a starting point. If we support this 
amendment, if we get into conference, then we can build on this to look 
at other options. But we have to start somewhere. I think this is a 
good starting point.
  So I rise in support of this amendment which would establish a 
National Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard of 15 percent by 2020. A 
15 percent RPS is an important step that we can take to meet our 
growing energy needs in an environmentally friendly manner and decrease 
our dependence on foreign oil and create more jobs.
  A study by Woods McKenzie found that a 15 percent RPS would decrease 
the price of natural gas by 15 to 20 percent, decrease wholesale 
electricity prices by 7 to 11 percent, for a savings of $240 billion to 
consumers and would avoid almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide by 
the year 2030.
  In addition, a Federal RPS would create hundreds of thousands of new 
jobs. In fact, the top five States that have been hit hardest with the 
loss in their manufacturing economy over the past 6 years, California, 
Ohio, Texas, North Carolina, and my home State of Pennsylvania, would 
benefit most from the creation of new agricultural and manufacturing 
jobs because of the passage of this amendment. My home State of 
Pennsylvania has established an RPS of 18 percent by 2020.
  Since its inception in 2004, the Renewable Energy Standard is 
associated with the creation of several thousand new jobs. Projections 
show that a national RPS would create an additional 7,000 jobs in my 
State alone. Momentum has been steadily growing for a national RPS. 
Currently, almost half of all States have implemented such an RPS 
standard.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe a national RPS is an important step to make 
to reduce pollution and lessen addiction to foreign energy sources. I 
urge a yes vote, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman 
from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment 
that is essentially an electricity tax on utilities and their 
consumers, with the greatest burden falling on States without renewable 
resources.
  Utility companies must be allowed to develop their renewable capacity 
in relation to consumers' acceptance of the resource and its related 
additional costs. We have done that in the great State of Oklahoma.
  Congress needs to recognize there are significant regional 
differences in the availability, amounts and types of renewable energy 
resources in different regions of the country. A one-size-fits-all 
Federal RPS mandate ignores the uneven distribution of available 
resources and the economic needs of individual States.
  Mr. Chairman, I didn't get elected from these other States. I got 
elected from Oklahoma. This is bad for Oklahoma. This is bad for 
working families. I am the only Democrat in Oklahoma, but my district 
is one of the poorest in the country. This will do damage to working 
families who are on fixed incomes.
  Mr. Chairman, this mandate for renewable electricity is nothing more 
than a thinly veiled tax.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who has been a key player on 
this issue.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, 
and I appreciate his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment. 
I could not disagree more with my good friend from Oklahoma. This is 
not a one-size-fits-all. Indeed, this has been recalibrated to be able 
to make it more flexible, reduce the standard, and give more 
flexibility in ways to achieve it. There is no State that does not have 
opportunities for renewable energy.

[[Page H9848]]

  The ranking member suggests that it doesn't go far enough. Well, I 
would suggest that part of the reason that some of the exemptions have 
been made for co-ops and whatnot is to recognize the differences and to 
make it actually easier politically.
  I will guarantee you that within the next 3 or 4 years after we adopt 
this we will be coming back, because the public will be demanding that 
more happen. That is why States are already ahead of the Federal 
Government and are adopting portfolio standards that are higher than we 
have.
  People recognize that that is a source of new jobs in Oklahoma and in 
Florida. It is a new source of jobs in my State of Oregon. There is a 
new plant in Arkansas. There are tremendous opportunities. That is why, 
when people from coast to coast have an opportunity to vote on 
establishing them, these have been overwhelmingly approved, as I hope 
we overwhelmingly approve this today.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from the great State of Florida (Mr. Stearns), a distinguished member 
of the committee.
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all agree with the 
Democrat from Oklahoma. He said this is a bad bill for the State of 
Oklahoma. This is also a bad bill for the State of Florida. Why is this 
bad? First of all, it is a giant tax increase.
  Now, Mr. Udall has indicated that part of the reason this bill should 
be passed is because it stimulates the economy. I suggest when you 
stimulate the economy with an increase in taxes, you are not going to 
get the stimulation that you expect.
  The Udall amendments proposes, as was mentioned, a one size that fits 
all States. Let each State work this out themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, do all the Members realize that the Renewable Portfolio 
Standard does not include municipal solid waste? That does not qualify 
as renewable under the RPS proposal. In fact, a lot of the States that 
you represent use municipal solid waste. That is not even going to be 
part of this portfolio stand?.
  This one size fits all is not going to work and does not take into 
account the nuances and the specific energy and economic needs of 
individual States. They are working on this themselves. We do not need 
this bill. Vote against the Udall amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Mexico. I appreciate his effort to support 
renewable energy and ensure clean, renewable sources of energy but this 
amendment is not the way to go about it. The Udall amendment proposes a 
one size fits all renewable portfolio standard RPS that would 
drastically increase electricity costs for Floridians and the entire 
Southeast without promoting investment in renewable energy generation.
  Because of its design, the proposed Federal RPS imposes an unequal 
burden on States. Utilities located in areas of the country with poor 
renewable resources, like Florida, will be required to purchase credits 
from utilities located in areas with strong renewable resources 
potential, leading to significant wealth transfers out of Southeastern 
States.
  This one-size-fits-all Federal mandate does not take into account the 
specific energy and economic needs of individual States by requiring 
that 15 percent of retail electricity sales be generated from specific 
renewable resources which are not prevalent in the Southeast. Because 
Florida and the Southeast lack sufficient quantities of such resources, 
utilities in our region would be forced to pay harsh penalties for 
noncompliance.
  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, renewable 
resources currently account for only 3 percent of Florida's total 
electric generation. More than one-third of this power is generated 
from municipal solid waste, but municipal solid waste does not fully 
qualify as renewable under this RPS proposal. In fact, the majority of 
renewables currently used in Florida do not qualify under this 
proposal. Even if all existing renewable resources were included in the 
RPS, Florida would still have difficulty meeting the requirements given 
our limited availability of solar, landfill gas and virtually no wind 
power in the State.
  And because Florida lacks the renewable resources as defined in this 
RPS proposal, this mandate would force electric utility companies to 
purchase renewable energy credits to meet the federal requirements. 
Since most of these credits would be purchased from the government and 
would not be based on actual renewable generation, it would essentially 
amount to an energy tax on all Floridians and anyone who lives in the 
Southeast. If Congress enacts a 15 percent RPS, this tax would cost 
Florida ratepayers billions of dollars and greatly increase the average 
annual energy cost to residential customers. In a report released by 
the Department of Energy in June 2007, the proposed RPS would cause 
residential customers to spend $7.2 billion more for electrtity.
  Every single State public service commission in the Southeast, 
including the Florida PSC, recognizes this amendment will significantly 
raise electric bills for the ratepayers they represent. The Southern 
Legislative Conference, representing the legislatures of Southeastern 
states, has also recognized how unfair the Federal RPS is and has 
recommended that States be allowed to write their own standard.
  In fact, 23 States already have an RPS tailored to fit their own 
available resources and energy needs and many more States are presently 
in the process of creating an RPS. Florida is one of those States. 
Governor Crist recently announced a 20 percent renewables program by 
2020. However, he remains strongly opposed to a one-size-fits-all 
Federal mandate. It is Florida's position that individual States can 
best determine what is attainable in their State and should be allowed 
to set standards tailored to their specific capabilities and needs. I 
believe that renewable energy programs should be based on customer 
demand, regional differences, and appropriate incentives, not on 
unrealistic Federal mandates that selectively penalize electricity 
consumers in certain regions of the country. Regrettably, a Federal RPS 
mandate would impose significant additional costs to Floridians and the 
entire Southeast without providing any new investment in renewable 
generation within their State.
  The Udall amendment will impose a giant new tax, while doing little 
to promote renewable energy, and absolutely nothing to lesion our 
dependence on foreign oil. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this 
one-size-fits-all RPS and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3221, the New 
Direction For Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer 
Protection Act.
  This important legislation puts our Nation on a new course in energy 
policy--a course towards additional energy supply, energy efficiency, 
conservation, environmental stewardship, and a leadership role in the 
worldwide effort to confront global warming.
  This legislation trains our workforce to provide the energy needs of 
future generations. Through the ``Green Jobs'' program, our Nation will 
train workers to manufacture sources of renewable energy and energy 
efficiency. We will also re-tool our economy and our workforce to bring 
about a diversified energy supply while assisting at-risk youth in 
developing the skills needed to join a new green economy.
  This bill returns the United States to a leadership role in the 
international effort to halt climate change. As the world's leading 
economy and a largest emitter of greenhouse gas, our Nation must 
participate in negotiating new international treaties and agreements on 
the environment. The new Ambassador-at-Large for Global Climate Change 
will work to build consensus in the global community on this 
international problem.
  The planet will be protected from global warming only through global 
cooperation and effort. This bill will task the State Department with 
attaining binding emissions reduction commitments from all major 
emitters, including China, India, and Brazil.
  This monumental legislation is only the first step in bringing 
America towards a cleaner, safer, and productive future. I wish to 
acknowledge Chairman Miller of the Education and Labor Committee, 
Chairman Lantos of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and all the other 
Committee Chairs for their strong leadership in drafting this bill.
  Most importantly, I applaud Speaker Pelosi's visionary leadership in 
crafting a national energy policy that we can be proud of and future 
generations will be eternally grateful for. I hope all of my colleagues 
join me in supporting this important and overdue legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has been another key 
player, organizer and leader on this issue.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is the energy vote of the decade. This 
is

[[Page H9849]]

the most important vote of the day, because this vote is about the 
future. This vote will decide whether or not we are going to have 15 
percent of our electricity by 2020 generated by wind, by solar, by 
biomass and by the other renewable electricity energy resources.
  Climate change, dependence upon imported oil, all of it is in this 
fossil fuel agenda. This gives us a chance to move to a new agenda, a 
new way of generating energy in our country: 15 percent by 2020.
  This is the challenge for our country. This is what the American 
people expect from us, not to be held hostage by OPEC, not to be 
polluting the atmosphere, not to be exacerbating climate change, but to 
be moving to a renewable future.
  This is the vote of the decade on the energy future of our country. 
This will send a signal to Europe, to China, to India, that we are 
serious about climate change, that we are serious about energy 
independence.
  Vote yes on the Udall-Platts amendment. Vote for the future and not 
for the past.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to move on to the new agenda.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time 
remaining on each side on this amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Eleven? I started out with 5. Now I have 11. 
This is good.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will suspend.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I like that ruling, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. We are going to make sure it is a correct ruling.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. We have some renewable minutes here, it looks 
like.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. With all those renewable minutes, I hope 
you're for the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. I am informed that the Chair was correct.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Really? Praise the Lord.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. How much time remains on our side?
  The CHAIRMAN. Eight minutes. The Chair was correct.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, since I have got a bonus of time 
here, I am going to yield myself 1 minute to comment on my good friend, 
Hopalong Markey's, comments.

                              {time}  1400

  If this is the energy amendment of the decade, what happened to the 
Markey-Boehlert amendment on CAFE in the last Congress, or the pending 
Markey amendment on CAFE in this Congress, or the amendment on ANWR in 
the last Congress, or the pending amendments we are going to have on 
the climate change bill that is going to come out later this fall, or 
the vote on the Energy Policy Act conference report, which is the most 
comprehensive energy bill in the last 40 years that has been adopted?
  If this is now the energy amendment of the decade, my friends on the 
majority are not planning on doing much on energy in the next decade. 
It is a worthy amendment. It is good to have a bipartisan debate. 
Renewable Portfolio Standards are obviously something that need to be 
debated and discussed and continually developed. But I do not believe 
this is the energy amendment vote of the decade.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a member 
of the committee.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment unfairly penalizes 
consumers in States like North Carolina, where investor-owned utilities 
provide a majority of the State's power using coal-fired generation and 
nuclear power, and it also undermines the State's Renewable Portfolio 
Standards. States in the Southeast and the Midwest are dependent upon 
coal-fired generation and investor-owned utilities have pioneered 
carbon sequestration techniques which substantially reduce further 
CO2 emissions.
  Many States don't have the environmental capacity to generate 
significant power through solar or wind. Western States are capable of 
harnessing wind, solar and hydroelectric power; and they benefit from 
meeting this. But they also would be able to sell credits to the States 
in the South, Southeast and Midwest, while higher retail energy costs 
will adversely affect the consumers and employers in States like North 
Carolina.
  Any jobs created to meet a government-mandated RPS will be miniscule 
compared to the manufacturing job losses that will result from higher 
energy costs. If the goal of the amendment is to reduce emissions and 
develop domestic energy forces, why not factor in nuclear power? 
Nuclear power is very important.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The great 
State of Nevada has had a renewable energy standard for a number of 
years. It is a 20 percent standard. It is about time the rest of the 
Nation caught up with the great State of Nevada. Let's do this for the 
future of our Nation and the future of our children.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. There are a 
variety of reasons that we should not impose a requirement for the use 
of renewables for electricity generation as a matter of Federal law 
that would be applicable across the country.
  The renewable resources for electricity generation are truly regional 
in nature and not every region of the country has them in sufficient 
quantity. The Southeast, for example, is deficient in both wind and 
solar resources; and these are the two renewable resources that are the 
closest to commercial viability across the country.
  Some proponents have said that every area of the country has biomass 
and biomass could be used as a renewable resource for electricity 
generation. But, Mr. Chairman, it simply cannot be a primary way that a 
large electric utility meets a renewables requirement of 15 percent of 
its total generating capacity.
  In fact, one utility estimated that it would have plant and harvest 
biomass from an area the size of the State of Connecticut if it is 
going to meet its 15 percent obligation using biomass. So it simply is 
not practical. That utility has little wind or solar potential. It 
would simply have to pay a large penalty that is estimated at about $20 
billion between 2020 and 2030 to the Federal Government for its failure 
to meet its obligation to use renewables to the extent of 15 percent of 
generating capacity, and that is money that would ultimately have to be 
paid by the ratepayers.
  Twenty-five States where renewable resources exist have their own 
renewables mandates. That is the way it ought to be handled, State by 
State, not through a one-size-fits-all national solution. In fact, one 
can hardly imagine a circumstance that is better suited to State by 
State decisionmaking and less well suited to a national mandate.
  The 25 States with their own programs have local renewable resources, 
and they have tailored their State laws to fit that resource 
availability. Their State laws make eligible a variety of different 
kinds of fuels and other kinds of offsets in order to meet that 15 
percent requirement. That is all tailored based on their local 
resources available.
  Virtually all of the States with programs make a broader range of 
fuels eligible for inclusion under the mandate than does the amendment 
that is pending before the committee for national application.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the House not to penalize ratepayers who happen 
to live in areas that have few renewable

[[Page H9850]]

resources. I think that renewables should be encouraged, and in fact I 
would like to see them encouraged to the greatest feasible extent. The 
way to do that is State by State, not as a national mandate.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). He has just written a book on 
energy. He is one of our big thinkers in the Democratic Party on this 
issue.
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment really is critical because 
we know one thing about America: when it sets grand goals, it is roused 
to great advance. When John F. Kennedy on May 9, 1961, stood right 
behind me and set a goal of America to go to the Moon in 10 years, the 
U.S. Congress did not complain that at that moment we did not have all 
the technologies we need to set that goal. But Kennedy knew that when 
America sets goals, it achieves them.
  Today, we set a goal to have 15 percent of our energy from renewable 
sources. We know this is an achievable goal. We know that every State 
in the continental United States, including the Southeast, has more 
solar energy capacity than Germany, that today, cloudy Germany is 
getting massive amounts of solar energy.
  The reason is that we understand that we are the people who invented 
the airplane, the Internet, software and mapped the human genome. And 
we are going to do this together. We are going to use clean coal for 
80, perhaps 89, percent using our fossil fuel. Is it too much to say 
that we will use 11 percent for renewables, for wave, biofuels, solar, 
and 4 percent for efficiency?
  This is a moment for America to have the same spirit of the original 
Apollo Project, and for the moment do not shirk and fear. Let's live 
our dreams. Let's live our aspirations. Let's pass this amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from the great State of Oregon (Mr. Walden), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I thank our 
ranking member for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been a believer that when it comes to RPS, they 
are best implemented locally at the State level or regionally, and, 
indeed, our State of Oregon has done so very effectively after much 
consideration.
  I came to the floor today thinking maybe this was a national version, 
if we were going to have one, to incent renewable energy, which I am a 
big advocate of, that this might work. But in reading this amendment as 
it has been proposed over the last few days, there are some issues that 
are contained therein that bring me to the point where I have to oppose 
it.
  Predominantly they relate around the sections that preclude certain 
biomass, depending on where it came from, from counting toward the 
Renewable Portfolio Standards requirement. I just don't understand why 
if biomass taken off one part of a forest counts, biomass taken off 
another part of a forest doesn't count. These are arbitrary decisions 
contained on page 3 and elsewhere in this legislation.
  I have an area in my district that has juniper trees that need to be 
removed, and everyone agrees they need to be removed. You could remove 
those juniper trees off the land not under the National Landscape 
Conservation District boundaries and they would count toward the 
biomass, toward Renewable Portfolio Standards, but those contained 
therein would not. The same with roadless wilderness study areas and 
things of that nature.
  Additionally, I am concerned about a definition I just ran across 
involving rural electric co-ops and how that could be defined, because 
I know there are some co-ops that aren't necessarily rural only.
  Finally, I would love to know why Hawaii is completely exempted from 
it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from Oregon and 
colleague's concerns, and as we have talked, I think his point is well 
taken in terms of the definition of biomass. I have indicated to the 
gentleman that I would be willing to work with him to make sure that 
this modest adjustment is made. I don't think there is any intent, and 
I look forward to working with him to make sure that that is solved.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to work with 
both of the gentleman to see that we correct this. I think this is 
something that we can work on and we can iron out.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk), who I know is very interested in renewable energy issues and has 
been a leader on that front.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, because 
an increase in renewable energy for our country will be an increase in 
American energy. Frankly, I would rather pay the Midwest than the 
Mideast for energy.
  As someone who still serves in the military, I would like to 
accelerate a day in the future in which our dependence on foreign 
energy is less of a concern to the Pentagon. Half of our States have 
already led with these kinds of standards.
  The Founding Fathers intended States to advance laws and standards 
before the national government did. They have led on this, and now it 
is time for our country to pitch in.
  This amendment helps us to pay Americans, not foreigners; it reduces 
our impact on the environment; but, most importantly, it makes it less 
likely than the Pentagon of 2020 is worried about foreign sources of 
energy.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from the great State of Arkansas (Mr. Ross), a member of the committee.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the development of 
renewable resources. However, establishing a nationwide standard 
through a one-size-fits-all approach makes this goal unachievable for 
States like my home State of Arkansas.
  In fact, if this amendment passes, I will be forced to vote against 
an energy bill that I helped write. The energy bill went nine, 10 or 11 
committees without this language, and here we are in the eleventh hour 
trying to put it on the bill in the House floor.
  My home State's wind capacity is minimal. And while we have great 
potential for biomass, the industry is years away. That means that in 
the meantime, this requirement would force consumers to have to bear 
the burden of making these technologies cost effective.
  Arkansans are among some of the lowest income in the United States, 
and this requirement will disproportionately affect them, resulting in 
their being forced to pay up to $15 more a month for electricity. That 
is why the Arkansas Public Service Commission, appointed by a 
Democratic Governor, has come out against this amendment.
  If this amendment is so great, why has its authors exempted municipal 
power systems, the TVA, electric co-ops and the State of Hawaii?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity, first of 
all, to thank you. This is a historic day. We hear the Presidential 
candidates on both sides, Republican and Democrat, talk about the 
importance of securing our Nation with energy. This is one of the first 
steps in order to do that. We have to take these steps. This gives us 
an opportunity to begin to secure our Nation, to reduce our dependency 
on the volatile supply of fossil fuels so we will be able to be more 
independent as we move forward.
  This opportunity also provides economic security for our Nation as a 
whole. It is also a historical moment in terms of renewing that energy 
that is out there besides in terms of just looking at the existing 
ones.
  In addition, let me just take this opportunity to say that this is 
about ensuring a clean and healthy future for our children and 
grandchildren and future generations. This has to begin to occur now.
  Yes, it has got its difficulties, but it is the first step in the 
right direction, to make sure we do the right thing. I want to 
encourage each and every one of you to vote in favor of this particular 
bill.

[[Page H9851]]

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to 
a former Member of the committee from the great State of California 
(Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
exemptions in this motion. I find it hard to believe that anyone who 
wants to really fight greenhouse gases is going to try to have winners 
and losers and allow these major exemptions that are in this bill.
  The City of Los Angeles is going to continue to go without the same 
mandates and requirements and standards that the City of San Diego 
would have. Why are public utilities exempt in this bill, as if their 
emissions are not going to affect the environment, as if government is 
somehow immune? Government should be leading, not being exempted.
  Mr. Chairman, as many surfers know, like myself, Hawaii has some of 
the most sun, wind and surf of any State in America. Why are Hawaii 
emissions exempt from this mandate when the rest are included? These 
exemptions are irresponsible and do not justify the environmental 
intention of this motion.
  I have strongly supported the intention, but it is too bad that 
special interests, special lobbying and the back-room deals have snuck 
in these exemptions that should not have ever existed.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has worked on these issues 
for many years.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I waited 20 years for a debate like this, so 
thank you to this Congress.
  I live, all of us live, in the greatest country in the world; but we 
consume and waste too much energy and we are vulnerable to oil-rich 
states in a part of the world that would do us harm. We need to work 
towards energy independence, freedom from declining energy sources, 
freedom from nations who would do us harm.
  Thirteen years to reach 11 percent renewable and 4 percent efficiency 
that is doable. We need to set this goal and then strive every day to 
reach it. And it is not as hard as the opponents would have us believe.
  Biomass, which includes so much, incremental hydropower, solar and 
solar water heating, wind, ocean tidal, geothermal, distributed energy, 
PURPA-qualified facilities. This is a goal we can reach. At least we 
should strive to reach it. We have 13 years to do it, and we need to 
start today.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania, Mr. Clean Energy, Mr. 
Peterson.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the chairman of the committee 
for yielding me this time.
  Currently, 3 percent of the grid is renewables. I wish there was a 
quick way we could turn the switch on and get to 15 in this short 
period of time. Such a mandate will raise power rates for many. A 
Federal RPS will undermine the existing programs in 25 States. Nowhere 
will this be more harmful than in Pennsylvania where we allow 20 
different sources of energy to meet our 12 percent RPS.
  Folks, wind and solar are our hope and dreams, but they are very, 
very small. And when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, 
we have a redundant source of energy for them, and that is natural gas, 
which has become the most expensive source of electricity today because 
we have been unwilling to produce it.
  We will cause States that don't have what they need to pay much 
higher rates, and we will not have the growth and increase of renewable 
electricity that we want. We have 50 States. Incentivize all of them to 
go out and meet these standards, but don't do a Federal mandate. It 
will work some places; it will cause harm in other places. Let the 50 
States determine.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and 
Government Reform and a real leader on renewable energy issues, Mr. 
Waxman.
  Mr. WAXMAN. People should not look for reasons to be against this 
amendment, they should look for reasons to be for it. It is in our 
natural interest. It is a win for our environment. It is a win for 
energy independence. It is a win for our national security.
  L.A. County is a municipal system. They are reducing 20 percent and 
diverting it to renewables.
  Let's recognize when we have more renewable energy, it provides jobs, 
it provides a better future and a better chance to accomplish what we 
need to do in this Nation.
  I congratulate Mr. Platts and Mr. Tom Udall, and urge my colleagues 
to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am the remaining speaker. I know 
Mr. Udall has the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire, a leader in the freshman class on this 
issue, Mr. Paul Hodes.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, the challenge of energy independence is 
perhaps the greatest challenge we face for the future of this country 
and our planet. It means national security, and it means jobs in the 
21st century, and it means meeting the challenge of global climate 
change.
  Twenty-three States have already adopted a renewable portfolio 
standard. In my State of New Hampshire, we have a standard of 25 
percent by the year 2025. We should not be hampered by fear that we 
cannot accomplish great things in the country. Our entrepreneurs and 
our free market system are ready to meet the challenge. They are 
waiting for a national standard, for a renewable portfolio standard to 
provide them the certainty to move forward. It is certainty to the free 
market that this standard will meet. It is time for a national 
standard.
  I support this amendment. I urge my colleagues and all those who 
understand the power of the entrepreneur in America and the free 
markets to support this amendment. It is time for full speed ahead.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I inquire if the sponsor has any other 
speakers?
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Yes, I do.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) to speak for 1 minute. She has helped 
enormously in this effort. She is a key player on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, if we really want to achieve energy 
independence, we need to make a national commitment to a common floor 
for a renewable portfolio standard. One size does not fit all, and 
that's why this amendment sets up a flexible, market-based trading 
system that lets utilities choose whether to develop renewable 
generation themselves or purchase credits from firms that have lower 
costs. If everybody does this, natural gas in the south and other 
places will go down.
  The concept of an RPS is not new, but recently it is gaining support 
like never before. Twenty-three States have passed versions of this. In 
my State of Colorado, the voters passed this over the objection of 
industry and the utilities. It was so successful that the legislature 
and Governor, with the support of industry, utilities and the farm 
community, increased our RPS by 20 percent by 2020 this year.
  It is the right thing to do. It is a good national commitment, and we 
believe by working together we can all meet this standard.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for 30 seconds. He knows this issue very well 
and I think has some important words for us.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the question: Is 
ingenuity dead in America? I don't think it is.
  If we look at the bottom of the bottomless pit, the bottom of the 
bottomless pit which we assume is an oil well, we will not find oil, we 
will find ingenuity. This is an issue of how America can rise to the 
occasion, provide for better national security, provide for a dynamic 
economy based on new technology, provide for a sound environment, and 
provide for the question of morality in this issue to our 
grandchildren.
  Ingenuity is not dead in America. Vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

[[Page H9852]]

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have been informed as a member 
of the committee I have the right to close. I would ask the sponsor to 
close, and then I will close.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the staff work has been 
incredible on this, including my legislative director. I want to thank 
them all.
  My cousin, who has been a key part in this effort, gave up his time 
so the Republicans could speak in a spirit of bipartisanship. With 
that, I would urge the rest of my colleagues to join me and my friends 
in passing this amendment and putting America on a path to a more 
secure energy future, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and reduce 
the energy bills for our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  We have had a good debate, Mr. Chairman. It is an issue that needs to 
be debated. But the amendment reminds me of a Hollywood starlet, and 
the authors remind me of a Hollywood cosmetic surgeon. This amendment 
has been nipped and tucked so much that it is hard to recognize the 
original amendment. It is still not ready for its screen test.
  I would hope that we defeat the amendment so we can then work 
together on a bipartisan basis on a renewable portfolio standard that 
could be supported. If you included nuclear power, if you included all 
sources of biomass, if you included the entire United States of 
America, and you didn't exempt one from the other, if you included 
municipal utilities like the Los Angeles Power and Light Utility that 
Mr. Waxman spoke about, you might have a basis on coming to an 
agreement that could be agreed upon by both sides of the aisle and some 
of the people that are now opposed to it.
  But this particular amendment needs to be opposed for all of the 
reasons that people like Mr. Boucher has said and Mr. Stearns has said 
and Mr. Ross and Mr. Boren and others have said. So I do hope when it 
comes time for the vote that the House rejects this amendment so we can 
work in the future on something that might be supported. I ask for a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to come from a state that has an impressive 
renewable energy standard--or RES--that was developed by Texans, for 
Texans, and that meets the needs of our state.
  Unlike most state RES plans, which are based on a specific percentage 
of sales, the Texas RES plan has a fixed statewide renewable capacity 
requirement of 5,880 megawatts (MW) by 2015, which would represent 
about 5 percent of the state's energy capacity.
  This isn't a question of whether or not we should encourage states to 
produce more electricity from renewable sources--we should. The 
question is whether a one-size-fits-all federal mandate is the best way 
to accomplish this goal.
  States like ours are already encouraging the development of renewable 
energy resources. Because of the diversity of state RES plans, any 
federal RES mandate could undercut or preempt those efforts. Some 
states promote resources--like nuclear, fuel cells, biogas, or bio-
diesel--that are not considered an eligible resource under this 
amendment.
  I am most concerned with the impact on my constituents' electricity 
bills with a federal RES. I represent an underserved area where hard-
working families cannot afford to face higher energy costs.
  In order to meet a 15 percent Federal RES by 2020, based on a 30 
percent capacity factor, Texas would need 29,159 MW of intermittent 
renewable capacity in operation by 2020. This is a 953 percent increase 
over its existing wind capacity, a 767 percent increase over its 
existing non-hydro renewable capacity, and a 396 percent increase over 
the 2015 state RES requirement of 5,880 MW.
  Texas utilities will likely be forced to make payments to the Federal 
Government to meet this federal mandate.
  Voting against this amendment doesn't mean you're against renewable 
electricity generation. It only means you believe each state should 
decide for themselves the goals and targets that meet each state's 
unique capabilities.
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Udall/Platts amendment that will establish a Federal renewable 
portfolio standard of 15 percent by the year 2020.
  By ensuring that 15 percent of the electricity we produce comes from 
renewable sources by 2020, we take another great step forward, just 
like we did when we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2007, in working 
towards the goal of energy independence.
  In addition to the goal of energy independence, this amendment also 
takes steps toward an issue that we as a country need to ban together 
to fight . . . and that is global warming.
  The Federal renewable portfolio standard we are debating here today 
by 2030 will save consumers an estimated $16.4 billion on their energy 
bills and an estimated $10 billion on their electricity bills.
  In addition, the amendment will increase our renewable energy 
capacity to 91 gigawatts and it's estimated that annual power plant 
carbon emissions will be reduced by 180 million metric tons.
  For my rural 11th District of Illinois, renewable sources of energy 
like wind and biomass are producing new jobs and revitalizing many 
small towns.
  There are currently two wind farms in my district, Mendota Hills and 
Crescent Ridge, with an additional two more, Twin Groves and McLean 
Wind Energy Center, in the works. The Crescent Ridge project, once 
completed will be one of the largest wind farms in the country.
  Since passage of the Energy Bill, we have seen over $100 million 
invested in Wind energy with a total investment of close to a billion 
dollars.
  The American Wind Energy Association estimates that for every new 
megawatt (MW) of wind energy, 15-19 direct and indirect jobs are 
created. There are about 826 MWs of planned wind production in various 
stages in Illinois. That translates into 14,868 jobs in Illinois.
  By establishing a Federal renewable portfolio standard, we can 
continue this growth in renewable energy and continue to produce many 
more new jobs.
  While I do support the underlying amendment, I believe it lacks one 
critical component. That is the inclusion of nuclear power as part of 
the standard.
  I have the distinct pleasure of representing a district that has the 
most nuclear power plants of any member of Congress.
  Accounting for close to 20% of the electricity produced here in the 
United States, nuclear energy cannot be ignored.
  With the focus of an RPS to not only drive us towards energy 
independence but to reduce carbon emissions, you cannot leave out an 
energy source like nuclear that produces 0 emissions.
  I am hopeful that when we move forward with this policy that I can 
work with the sponsors of this amendment to have this clean burning 
energy source included.
  In closing, I would like to take the opportunity to commend 
Congressmen Udall and Platts for offering their amendment today and ask 
that all of my colleagues support this amendment.
  Most of our States are moving towards renewable portfolio standards; 
its time for our country as a whole to become the leader.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Van Hollen:
        In section 9117(a), in the amendment adding paragraph (18) 
     to section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies 
     Act of 1978, in paragraph (18)(B), strike ``and'' in clause 
     (iv), strike the period at the end of clause (v) and insert 
     ``; and'' and after clause (v) insert:

       ``(vi) offering home energy audits, publicizing the 
     financial and environmental benefits associated with making 
     home energy efficiency improvements, and educating homeowners 
     about all existing Federal and State incentives, including 
     the availability of low-cost loans, that make home energy 
     efficiency improvements more affordable.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman

[[Page H9853]]

from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, this bill before us establishes many 
important incentives for consumers to make savings through the use of 
improvements in energy efficiency. However, I think we all understand 
that those incentives only work if consumers know about them and they 
are easily accessible, and that is what this noncontroversial amendment 
aims to do.
  It simply adds a sixth policy option for States to consider in title 
IX of the underlying bill. It asks States and asks utilities to partner 
with us to promote the use of home energy audits, to educate homeowners 
about the financial and environmental benefits associated with 
residential energy efficiency improvements, and to publicize the 
availability of Federal and State incentives to make residential energy 
efficiency improvements more affordable. In short, this amendment 
represents a voluntary, commonsense way to drive consumers towards the 
very incentives we encourage them to use in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this comprehensive energy package represents a long-
overdue course correction and a new vision for energy policy in the 
United States. Today, we are beginning to make good on our commitment 
to redirect many of the wasteful subsidies away from already highly 
profitable oil and gas companies towards the renewable energy and 
energy efficiency technologies of the future.
  These investments will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. They 
will help combat the growing problem of climate change by reducing our 
carbon dioxide emissions by 10.4 billion tons through the year 2030, 
more than the total of all tailpipe emissions from all of the cars on 
the road today.
  As we generate cleaner power, we will also generate an estimated 3 
million good-paying jobs over the next 10 years while investing in 
small business, economic development and high-payoff research at the 
Department of Energy.
  And its energy efficiency provisions that we hope this amendment will 
encourage more consumers to go toward will save consumers if they take 
advantage of them, a staggering $300 billion through the year 2030, 
demonstrating once again that the cheapest kind of energy is the kind 
we never have to use.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to ensure that American 
consumers know of the new possibilities before them. Many who oppose 
this bill focus on what they claim America cannot do. Those of us who 
support this bill have great faith in the creative energy and 
entrepreneurial spirit of the American people and our capacity to find 
innovative solutions to the challenges we face.
  I encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment which is in the 
spirit of the overall bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill establishes many important incentives for 
consumers to make savings through the use of improvements in energy 
efficiency. However, those incentives only work if consumers know about 
them and they are easily accessible. That is what this non-
controversial amendment aims to do. It simply adds a sixth policy 
option for states to consider in Title IX of the underlying bill. It 
asks states and utilities to partner with us to promote the use of home 
energy audits; to educate homeowners about the financial and 
environmental benefits associated with residential energy efficiency 
improvements and to publicize the availability of Federal and State 
incentives to make residential energy efficiency improvements more 
affordable. In short, this amendment represents a voluntary, common-
sense way to drive consumers toward the incentives we encourage them to 
use.
  Mr. Chairman, this comprehensive energy package represents a long 
overdue course correction and a new vision for energy policy in the 
United States. Today, we are making good on our commitment to redirect 
huge wasteful subsidies away from our already highly profitable oil and 
gas companies toward the renewable energy and energy efficiency 
technologies of the future.
  These new investments will reduce our dependability on foreign oil. 
They will significantly enhance our ability to combat global climate 
change--by reducing our carbon dioxide emissions by 10.4 billion tons 
through 2030, more than the total tailpipe emissions from all the cars 
on the road today.
  And while these investments generate more clean energy they will also 
generate an estimated 3 million good-paying jobs over the next 10 years 
while investing in small business economic development and high-payoff 
research at the Department of Energy.
  And its energy efficiency provisions will save consumers and 
businesses a staggering $300 billion through 2030--demonstrating once 
again that the cheapest kind of energy is the kind you never have to 
use.
  This amendment is designed to ensure that American consumers know of 
the new possibilities before them. Many who oppose this bill focus on 
what they claim America cannot do. Those of us who support this bill 
have great faith in the creative energy and entrepreneurial spirit of 
the American people and our capacity to find innovative solutions to 
the challenges we face.
  I encourage my colleagues' support.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Would the gentleman from Maryland yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would be happy to yield to Mr. Boucher, and I want 
to commend him for his important work on this bill.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his comments. 
I want to commend the gentleman for bringing this amendment before the 
committee today.
  Home energy audits can be extremely helpful in encouraging energy 
efficiency. Most people are very surprised to learn just how energy 
inefficient, how leaky their homes actually are, and how inexpensively 
those energy leaks can be remedied and plugged simply by putting 
sealing and other kinds of technologies around doors and windows and 
around the roof.
  Requiring States to consider holding their utilities to a Federal 
standard that would enable them to offer home energy audits, and in 
fact require that, to educate consumers and to publicize low-interest 
loans to finance these improvements could lead to many audits that 
otherwise are not likely to occur. Those audits in turn would lead to 
major energy savings we are not currently obtaining.
  As long as implementation of the amendment takes into proper account 
any potential to create undue competition between utilities that are 
offering home energy audits and the private entities that are already 
doing so, this amendment would create an excellent standard for 
consideration by the States. I am pleased to urge its adoption.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Virginia, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone rise in opposition?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I can't say we really support it, 
but we don't oppose it. So we don't seek any time on it.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, in that case, I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Schwartz

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 110-300.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Schwartz:
       In part 4 of subtitle A of title IX, add at the end the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 9053. GREEN MEETINGS.

       (a) Purchase of Meeting and Conference Services.--Not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall ensure 
     that the Federal Acquisition Regulation is revised to require 
     each Federal agency to consider, in each purchase of meeting 
     and conference services, the environmentally preferable 
     features and practices of a vendor in a manner substantially 
     similar to that required of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency in section 1523.703-1 (relating to acquisition of 
     environmentally preferable meeting and conference services) 
     and section 1552.223-71 (relating to EPA Green Meetings and 
     Conferences) of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, as set 
     forth in the Environmental Protection Agency final rule 
     published on pages 18401 through 18404 of volume 72, Federal 
     Register (April 12, 2007).

[[Page H9854]]

       (b) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``environmentally preferable'' and ``Federal 
     agency'' have the meanings given them by section 2.101 of the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation; and
       (2) the term ``meeting and conference services'' means the 
     use of off-site commercial facilities for a Federal agency 
     event, including an event for a meeting, conference, training 
     session, or other purpose.

       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, let me say I'm strongly supportive of the underlying bill that 
we are debating today. I think it moves us forward toward energy 
independence. It's exciting for all American businesses, for 
conservation, for energy efficiency and for the future of this country 
and this world.
  My amendment is fairly straightforward. It helps us move us toward 
more green policies. Each year, the Federal Government spends $14 
billion for travel, most of that money going for hotels and for meeting 
spaces. These are taxpayer dollars that should be used to encourage the 
reduction of energy consumption. For instance, if one hotel initiates a 
linen and towel reuse program, it can conserve 200 barrels of oil, 
enough to run a family car 180,000 miles.
  My amendment moves the United States towards green government by 
ensuring that the Federal Government considers the environmental 
benefits of the vendors with which they contract for meetings and 
conferences. This proposal expands upon a policy already used by the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  The EPA says this policy, they hope, ``is seen as a template that 
eventually may be emulated governmentwide.'' My amendment expedites 
implementation of this policy across the Federal Government and 
requires that within 180 days all Federal agencies must consider the 
environmentally preferable features and practices of a vendor in a 
manner that's substantially similar to the EPA.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and 
I rise in support of her amendment and am pleased to urge its adoption.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has criteria presently assuring 
that any conferences that the EPA conducts are held at the highest 
standards for energy efficiency and for minimum environmental impact. 
This amendment would simply require all Federal agencies holding 
conferences and meetings to consider meeting these criteria. It's a 
step forward, and I'm pleased to urge its adoption.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I thank you.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone rise in opposition?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we're neutral on the amendment and 
seek no time in opposition.
  I yield back my time.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Arcuri

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Arcuri:
       In title IX, insert the following at the end of part 1 of 
     subtitle B and make the necessary conforming amendments in 
     the table of contents:

     SEC. 9119. EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY.

       Section 216 of the Federal Power Act (as added by section 
     1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) is amended by 
     repealing subsections (f) and by amending subsection (e) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(e) Acquisition of Rights-of-Way.--In the case of a 
     permit under subsection (b) for electric transmission 
     facilities to be located on property other than property 
     owned by the United States or a State, if the permit holder 
     cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the 
     owner of the property to the compensation to be paid for, the 
     necessary right-of-way to construct or modify the 
     transmission facilities, the permit holder may acquire the 
     right-of-way in accordance with State law for the State in 
     which the property is located.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Arcuri) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would remove the right of a private company with a 
project that has already been approved by FERC to use the Federal 
Government's supreme power of eminent domain to take private property 
from landowners. Contrary to what the utility companies claim, my 
amendment would not leave an approved company without any recourse.
  No, instead it would merely require the approved company to follow 
the existing State law procedure for obtaining a right-of-way. States 
have laws that help companies with approved power projects obtain the 
necessary right-of-ways, and these laws work. They have worked for many 
years. I know of no power line project anywhere in the country that has 
ever failed to be completed once it had been approved and the company 
held the necessary permits to begin construction.
  We understand that there are serious energy needs facing this country 
that must be addressed swiftly and judiciously. All this amendment does 
is permit an already approved company from using Federal eminent domain 
to drag a property owner into Federal court and take his land. That is 
a supreme power of the Federal Government.
  This is not a Democratic or Republican issue or liberal or 
conservative issue. This is about protecting the rights of the citizens 
of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think that those of us who are 
Members of the House who have watched this debate have seen that, as we 
have actually debated various amendments, I've gone out of my way to be 
as supportive of as many of the amendments as possible. We have 
accepted a number of them with no debate at all. So it's not in any 
spirit of partisanship or anything like that that I rise in opposition 
to this.
  In the Energy Policy Act 2 years ago, at the request and after 
extensive consultation with stakeholders, we put in a provision that in 
certain cases gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the 
authority to go in and arbitrate in some of these interstate 
transmission, grid transmission lines where the States have not been 
able to reach agreements among themselves. It's a very limited 
authority, but part of that does give eminent domain authority that is 
the intent of this amendment to strike.
  We don't have enough transmission grid capacity in this country right 
now. We need to be building more power plants. We also need to be 
building more transmission lines to get that power to the market. This 
amendment, if successfully passed, would gut what we just did 2 years 
ago.
  There have been a number of other attempts to change this part of the 
Energy Policy Act. The latest attempt was in June when Congressman 
Hinchey tried to strip out or gut section 216. It lost on the House 
floor 174-257. I hope that this amendment has a similar fate if it 
comes to a rollcall vote.
  We simply have to have the ability in this country to move 
electricity from where we generate it to where we consume it, and in 
some States like Texas, Alaska, some of the large Western States, you 
can actually generate it in one State and use it in the same

[[Page H9855]]

States, which means you are transmitting it in intrastate commerce, but 
in most of our States, you're going to have transmission lines across 
State lines. So we have to have some Federal agency to serve as an 
arbitrator when the States can't agree amongst themselves.
  And in the Energy Policy Act 2 years ago, we gave that authority, 
under limited circumstances, to the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission. I think it was the appropriate thing to do, and I hope that 
we keep that authority, and I hope we would, thus, oppose this 
particular amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with my colleague 
from Texas. This amendment would not gut the bill. In fact, it would 
just give the States the right to have some input into where the power 
lines are going to be run in the State the same way that they have 
input in the State of Texas.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to my good friend and fellow New Yorker 
(Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I stand in strong support of this amendment.
  I stand here speaking for my constituents at the Mount Hope 
Presbyterian Church in Orange County, New York, whose right-of-way to 
their church, a pillar of their community, will be cut off by the 130-
foot-high tower for a power line that will be stuck in their driveway.
  I stand here speaking for the owner of the Otisville, New York, 
hardware store, another mainstay of the community, and for his 
customers and his employees whose store will be leveled to put a tower 
there for the transmission line because they are running it literally 
down Main Street in patriotic, hardworking, taxpaying, all-American 
town of Otisville, New York.
  Only one of the many stories of the NYRI power line, one of these 
supposedly national interest electric transmission corridors. In the 
name of property rights and in the name of States' rights and in the 
name of due process and protecting ordinary Americans from having their 
rights run over by some distant Federal agency that they don't 
understand, I plead for support of this amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this is a complex issue, 
and I wish we had more time to really debate it, but it is a very 
important issue because this language was in the energy bill because we 
had problems across this country around our centers where a lot of 
electricity is used.
  New York is the biggest user of electricity, but if we do this, we're 
saying that we have enough. If surrounding States such as Pennsylvania, 
an energy exporting State, took the same attitude, New York would be in 
the dark. Indeed, more reasonable New Yorkers realize this as 
demonstrated by the following statement from Mr. Gil Quiniones, Chair 
of the New York Energy Policy Task Force: ``The designation of vitally 
needed transmission corridors will enhance the public welfare both in 
the Nation at large and in New York City as the Nation's most critical 
financial and commercial center.''
  Join me in defeating this amendment. This is scare tactics. These are 
very limited powers that are used already on gas transmission lines. 
They've not been abused, but when we have disagreements between States 
and we have local groups who are just anti everything in energy, we 
need the ability to get electric and gas to our cities so they can 
function.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 3 minutes.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is nothing about 
scare tactics. In fact, this morning I received notice from our 
Governor, who is a resident of New York City, supporting this amendment 
because this will help us get power to New York City in a responsible 
way. That's what this amendment is about. It's not about preventing it. 
It's about helping it to be done in a responsible way.
  And with that, I yield 1 minute to my fellow New Yorker (Mr. 
Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. I express my appreciation to my friend and colleague 
from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for putting this amendment out so that we 
can have an opportunity to discuss it.
  As we have just heard, this amendment is supported strongly by the 
Governor of New York, and in fact, it is supported essentially by every 
Governor across the States. Why is that? Because this amendment makes 
it clear that the issue of eminent domain constitutionally belongs in 
the hands of the State, not the Federal Government, and it simply says 
that there is no impediment about these lines but decisions with regard 
to eminent domain should be placed in the hands of the State and the 
State government.
  People should have a right to be able to protect their private 
personal property rights, and issues involving transmission lines and 
others that may require the use of private property are to be dealt 
with in a reasonable and lawful way, and this is what this amendment 
simply does.
  It's very straightforward, very direct, and in no way impedes 
anything that is going to be injurious to any issue involving 
electricity or anything else. It simply asserts the rights of private 
property.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to a member of 
the committee, Mr. Green of Texas.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  I don't know how many times this Congress has to vote against this. 
It's been defeated twice during the appropriations process.
  Every analysis of the past decade has confirmed the critical need to 
expand and upgrade our Nation's transmission infrastructure, a need 
that's already raising the cost of electricity to many Americans and 
proving a barrier to diversifying our energy resources. Now is not the 
time to take a step backward.
  I think it's interesting our three colleagues from New York, if it's 
an interstate line, it doesn't matter, but you may have problems 
getting it to New York. But also, New York was the last place that had 
a blackout simply because there was a problem in Ohio.
  We need to have these transmission corridors across our country.
  This amendment removes from federal law the grant of eminent domain 
authority that comes with the issuance of a construction permit by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, to a critical transmission 
project located in severely congested areas.
  The Arcuri amendment would eliminate from the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 the incentive provided for states to cure gaps in their state 
siting laws that are especially apparent when interstate projects are 
needed.
  Nowhere else has Congress authorized FERC to grant approval for 
energy projects--such as natural gas pipelines--without also assuring 
the necessary federal eminent domain authority accompanies the permit, 
license, or certificate.
  Under EPAct 2005, the only projects FERC will consider are those that 
are critically needed and for which States could not or would not act 
to approve in timely manner.
  Yet, the Arcuri-Hinchey-Hall amendment would establish greater 
barriers to the success of these projects than any other energy 
project.
  The same grant of eminent domain authority that is available to all 
other energy projects approved by FERC should be available to these 
critical transmission projects.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, in closing, there is an old saying that we 
should think globally but act locally. That is exactly what this 
amendment attempts to do. That is the idea behind this amendment.
  We crafted it very narrowly, and despite some of the comments by the 
speakers about the problems that this would create, it does no such 
thing. In fact, it does just the opposite. This achieves all of the 
things that we need in this country. That is, getting energy and power 
to our large communities, to our large cities, to New York, to Los 
Angeles, to the places that need it.

[[Page H9856]]

  It does it in a responsible way. It does it in such a way that the 
localities, the areas that we call the faucet, have some say in getting 
the power to the sink, and that's the area that FERC refers to as the 
place that needs the power, and, equally as important, that the people 
along the way have some say as well.
  That's what this amendment does; and, as I say, it is supported by, 
as my friend, Mr. Hinchey, said, most of the Governors in this country.
  The amendment deals with the concerns of localities. It deals with 
the constitutional rights, the States' rights that our States are most 
concerned with and, most importantly, it deals with the needs of all 
Americans.
  I strongly support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so 
as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me simply say that 
the Energy Policy Act requires that you go through the State siting 
process first, including going through the State court system first. If 
you have a problem there, you then have to get the Department of Energy 
to designate the particular corridor as an electric transmission 
corridor that's in the national interest. Then you go to the FERC, and 
then they go through a hearing process that then can be subject to the 
Federal court system.
  What's in current law is carefully crafted to protect States' rights, 
to protect the local community but also give the ability on rare 
occasions to get a transmission line built that needs to be built.
  I urge the defeat of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hodes

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Hodes:
       In part 3 of subtitle A of title IX, add at the end the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 9035. RENEWABLE ENERGY REBATE PROGRAM STUDY.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Energy shall conduct, and transmit to 
     Congress a report on, a study regarding the rebate program 
     described in section 206(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 
     The study shall--
       (1) develop a plan for how such a rebate program would be 
     carried out if it were funded; and
       (2) determine the minimum amount of funding the program 
     would need to receive in order to accomplish the goal of 
     encouraging consumers to install renewable energy systems in 
     their homes or small businesses.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of an amendment offered by Mr. Welch of 
Vermont, my distinguished colleague, and me. This amendment would order 
a study using already appropriated funds to determine how best to 
administer a renewable energy rebate program for homes and small 
businesses.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Energy Secretary to 
establish a rebate program to encourage consumers to use renewable 
energy to power their homes and small businesses. It included a broad 
definition of renewable energy, allowing Americans from every corner of 
the country to benefit from such a rebate.
  The program has great potential for helping those without the initial 
capital to make their homes or small businesses green. However, after 
the program's inclusion in the 2005 Act, Congress did not follow 
through on its goal of encouraging renewable energy for families and 
small business owners. While it was authorized for a total of $1 
billion from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, not one penny has been 
appropriated under this program to provide rebates under this program.
  Now, more than ever, this program is essential to kick-start a clean 
green energy revolution for millions of American family and our small 
business owners.
  Congress needs to know how we can make this program work. Our 
amendment would require a study using existing Department of Energy 
funds to create a plan for administering the rebate system and 
estimating how much money the program would need to effectively 
encourage families and small business owners to install renewable 
energy systems. With this information in hand, Congress will be better 
equipped to determine the best way to encourage renewable energy use.
  Families and small businesses are among those who face the toughest 
challenges in coping with rising energy costs. Congress has had the 
good judgment to authorize a program to fix this program, and it's time 
we make it work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank my distinguished colleague from New Hampshire 
for yielding, and I commend him on bringing the amendment before the 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, his amendment to title IX would order the Secretary of 
Energy to conduct a study of the Renewable Energy Rebate Program for 
homes and small businesses as that program is defined in the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. The study would require the creation of a plan for 
the program and also determine a minimum amount of funding that the 
program would need to be viable. It is a helpful addition to energy 
policy, and I encourage its adoption.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am only in mild opposition to 
this, but I am in opposition. I don't really think we need this 
particular study. It seems to be duplicative. It wouldn't be the worst 
amendment ever adopted on the House floor, if it were to be adopted, 
but I don't really think that it's necessary.
  What I really want to talk about is the current Republican chief of 
staff to the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Bud Albright, who is in 
the Chamber behind me.
  Last evening, the other body confirmed him to be the Under Secretary 
of Energy, and so he will be leaving in the very near future to try to 
use some of the great things he has learned from myself and Mr. Dingell 
and Mr. Boucher and others for the benefit of the Department of Energy 
and the people of the United States of America as the number three 
person at the Department.
  He began his public service career with the Department of Justice, 
where he was a prosecutor. I got to know him when he came to the Energy 
and Commerce Committee as my general counsel on the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee back in 1995. He went into private practice 
for a time. Then, when I became the chairman of the committee 3\1/2\ 
years ago, I asked him to be the majority chief of staff; and he has 
performed those duties in outstanding fashion. He has performed the 
duties of the minority chief of staff in an outstanding fashion. He 
will be leaving us to go to the Department of Energy.
  I simply wanted to wish him the very best and tell him that he has 
many, many friends on both sides of the aisle in the House of 
Representatives. We fully expect him to comply with every Dingellgram 
and every letter of request for information and witness appearance list 
for the Department of Energy, which he will shortly be receiving in his 
new duties as Under Secretary.
  Mr. DINGELL. Would the gentleman yield?

[[Page H9857]]

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the 
full committee, Mr. Dingell.
  Mr. DINGELL. I want to thank my distinguished friend from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) for all the good work that he does. I want to express my 
affection and respect for him. I want to thank him for raising the 
question about the departure of Mr. Albright.
  Mr. Albright has served the committee with distinction. He has been a 
friend to all of us. He has been a wise counselor. He will be an 
extraordinarily fine public servant when he moves to the Department of 
Energy.
  He will be missed here. He carries with him the affection, the 
respect and the good wishes of all of us. I wish to have him know of my 
friendship, affection and respect for him.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to my friend from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher).
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to associate myself with the comments of the chairman of our 
committee, Mr. Dingell. Mr. Albright has performed a tremendous public 
service in the years that he has served as staff director on the 
Republican side of the committee, both in the majority and now in the 
minority.
  He now embarks on another phase of his career, and I am pleased to 
note will be continuing in public service. I know he will do a fine 
job. We are going to miss him, and I join with the other Members in 
wishing him well.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment and 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to my remaining time?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Hampshire has 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my distinguished 
colleague, Mr. Wolf of Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Arcuri 
amendment.
  This amendment simply authorizes the use of State eminent domain 
authority rather than Federal eminent domain.
  For those on our side, referencing for our side, this is, this is a 
States' rights amendment. I urge Members on my side to support the 
Arcuri amendment.
  I want to say congratulations to Mr. Albright.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply authorizes the use of State 
eminent domain authority rather than Federal eminent domain authority 
when siting federally approved transmission lines.
  This amendment is vital to the protection of the landscapes in my 
district by recognizing State and local conservation easements and 
designations. In the 10th District of Virginia, which I represent, 
these designations protect the lands that George Washington surveyed, 
that inspired Thomas Jefferson, and that Chief Justice John Marshall 
farmed.
  Millions of Federal, State, local and private funds have been used to 
preserve and protect the lands now threatened by the designation of a 
National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor which authorized the 
Federal Government to override state transmission siting authority.
  We must give these lands this limited protection. I urge you to 
support this commonsense amendment to protect our private citizens and 
our national treasures.
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that this noncontroversial 
amendment for a study is opposed. Since 2005, although the program has 
been authorized, no money has been appropriated. It is an effective, 
efficient use of resources to embark on a study with results to be 
delivered to us in 120 days, so Congress knows how best to implement 
the provisions of the program already authorized and how much it will 
cost. We will then be in a position to make educated determinations 
about how much money to appropriate for this very important program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Barton

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 110-300.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Murphy of 
Pennsylvania, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Barton:
       In section 9502(a), insert ``improvements in data on solid 
     byproducts from coal-based energy-producing facilities,'' 
     after ``oil and gas data,''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would modify 
section 9502(a) of H.R. 3221 to ensure that the Energy Information 
Administration restores its previously terminated collection of data on 
solid byproducts from coal-based energy producing facilities and makes 
improvements on these data.
  I don't think it's controversial, and I would ask its adoption.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  A major purpose of our provisions in subtitle F of title IX is to 
provide that the Energy Information Administration begin collecting 
again important data that it once collected but discontinued collection 
of under budget or personnel constraints, and data on solid byproducts 
of coal use fell into that category.
  Mr. Murphy's amendment would simply require that this data on solid 
byproducts of coal use once again be corrected. We support it and urge 
that amendment be adopted.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1500


         Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Serrano). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 12 printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut:
       In title IX, insert the following at the end of part 1 of 
     subtitle B and make the necessary conforming amendments in 
     the table of contents:

     SEC. 9119. PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR CERTAIN FERC ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Before issuing a permit, license, or other 
     authorization under part I of the Federal Power Act for any 
     action that may affect land use in any locality, the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission shall hold a public meeting in 
     that locality regarding such permit, license or other 
     authorization if such a meeting is requested by 5 or more 
     individuals or an organization representing 30 or more 
     individuals. The meeting shall be held before the end of any 
     period for public comment under Commission rules. Not more 
     than one public meeting need be held with respect to a single 
     permit, license or other authorization
       (b) Multiple Areas.--In the case of a facility that affects 
     multiple areas, the meeting shall be held in a statistical 
     metropolitan area at a location reasonably central to the 
     affected areas.
       (c) Motions To Reconsider.--The Commission shall hold such 
     a meeting whenever a request for reconsideration is granted 
     if the request was filed before the enactment of this section 
     and the Commission did not hold a hearing prior to issuing 
     the permit, license, or other authorization concerned.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer an 
amendment to H.R. 3221, to require the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, or better known as FERC, to hold public local meetings 
before issuing permits or authorizations that will affect land use 
decisions, if that meeting is requested by local citizens.

[[Page H9858]]

  While FERC is required to have an open comment period before they 
issue a rule, there is currently no mechanism right now to require that 
they hold a public local hearing in an affected locality.
  I bring this issue to the floor today, Mr. Chairman, because my 
constituents who live in the community surrounding Candlewood Lake in 
Connecticut were unable to secure a public hearing from FERC to air 
their concerns regarding a shoreline management plan that would impose 
new hefty fees on the residents that surround that lake and enjoy that 
lake.
  This amendment is based on a simple premise: Public policymakers 
cannot and should not, frankly, act without the input of citizens who 
will be affected by the decisions that they make.
  As legislators, we know we can't simply sample public opinion by 
sitting in our offices here in Washington and reading the mail that may 
come in. We need to go back to our districts and solicit opinion there. 
A regulatory agency should be held to the same standard, especially in 
relation to hydropower assets, around which many citizens reside.
  My amendment is a commonsense solution to the problem that any of us 
could face. It does nothing to alter or constrain the decisions that 
FERC may ultimately make; it just ensures the commission would hear all 
sides before making any determination on land use issues and ensures 
that our constituents' voices are heard.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that this issue may need more time for the 
committee.
  I would be happy to yield to the chairman for a short colloquy.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
commend him for bringing this matter before the committee today. It is 
my understanding that he intends to ask that his amendment be withdrawn 
momentarily.
  Let me give assurance to the gentleman that we are sensitive to the 
valid concerns that he has raised about the need to have public 
participation in the processes of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission; and I want to pledge to him that we will work with him and 
with the FERC to ensure that his constituents are heard with regard to 
matters that affect them.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him on bringing this 
concern before the House.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, my intention is to withdraw this amendment. I look 
forward also to working with my colleagues on the greater issue of 
making sure that, in all cases, our constituents' voices are heard when 
these decisions are handed down. As we move more control over Federal 
power assets from States to the Federal Government, it seems that we 
should still have safeguards in place to make sure that local citizens' 
issues and concerns are taken into consideration by FERC, and I plan to 
continue my advocacy of that cause.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment withdrawn at this 
point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Sali

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Sali:
       In title IX, add at the end the following new subtitle:

              Subtitle G--Large and Small Scale Hydropower

     SEC. 9601. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       Congress recognizes and supports renewable energy. 
     Specifically, the clean, consistent, pollution free large and 
     small scale conventional hydropower energy.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman 
from Idaho (Mr. Sali) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to this 
energy bill.
  Let me start out by saying bluntly that I feel that this energy bill 
is a step backward with virtually every topic that it covers.
  With that being said, I do want to bring to light an issue that I 
feel this bill does not cover and that issue is hydropower. My 
amendment is simple. It expresses the sense of Congress recognizing and 
supporting renewable energy; specifically, it will add clean, 
consistent, pollution free, large and small scale conventional 
hydropower to this bill.
  My amendment is a sense of Congress supporting hydropower. If we are 
going to discuss renewable energy, then we need to include hydropower. 
It is clean, renewable, consistent, and, most importantly, pollution 
free. Hydropower works all the time and should be a part of this bill 
because hydropower in America produces no greenhouse gas emissions. In 
fact, hydropower offsets more carbon emissions than all other renewable 
energy resources combined. Let me say that again: hydropower offsets 
more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy resources 
combined.
  We have heard a lot about greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Chairman, if 
we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, than we need to 
recognize hydropower produces zero greenhouse gas emissions. Last year 
alone, we avoided some 160 million tons of carbon emissions by the use 
of hydropower here in the United States.
  I am from the Pacific Northwest, from Idaho. We are truly blessed to 
have more than 60 percent of the power in the Pacific Northwest come 
from hydropower. In fact, there is so much power produced in the 
Northwest from hydropower that we often sell our excess supply to areas 
such as Southern California, where they historically have a shortage at 
certain times of the year.
  I feel strongly that Congress needs to support conventional 
hydropower, and that is why I am offering this amendment today.
  In closing, I want to remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
that hydropower is emission free, completely renewable, clean, and 
domestic. That is right, it is domestic. I would urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on this Sali amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes left.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALI. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him on 
this amendment that would simply express the sense of the Congress, 
recognizing the benefits of both large-scale and small-scale 
hydroelectric projects. We accept the amendment and urge its adoption.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho will 
be postponed.


            Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 
printed in part B of House Report 110-300.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont:
       In part IV of subtitle A of title IX, add at the end the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 9077. ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AND EFFICIENCY GRANTS FOR 
                   INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

       Part G of title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation 
     Act is amended by inserting

[[Page H9859]]

     after section 399 (42 U.S.C. 371h) the following:

     ``SEC. 399A. ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AND EFFICIENCY GRANTS FOR 
                   INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Energy sustainability.--The term `energy 
     sustainability' includes using a renewable energy resource 
     and a highly efficient technology for electricity generation, 
     transportation, heating, or cooling.
       ``(2) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 2 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
     15801).
       ``(b) Grants for Energy Efficiency Improvement.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award not more than 
     100 grants per year to institutions of higher education to 
     carry out projects to improve energy efficiency on the 
     grounds and facilities of the institution of higher 
     education, including not less than 1 grant to an institution 
     of higher education in each State.
       ``(2) Condition.--As a condition of receiving a grant under 
     this subsection, an institution of higher education shall 
     agree to--
       ``(A) implement a public awareness campaign concerning the 
     project in the community in which the institution of higher 
     education is located; and
       ``(B) submit to the Secretary, and make available to the 
     public, reports on any efficiency improvements, energy cost 
     savings, and environmental benefits achieved as part of a 
     project carried out under paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Grants for Innovation in Energy Sustainability.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award not more than 
     250 grants per year to institutions of higher education to 
     engage in innovative energy sustainability projects, 
     including not less than 2 grants to institutions of higher 
     education in each State.
       ``(2) Innovation projects.--An innovation project carried 
     out with a grant under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) involve--
       ``(i) an innovative technology that is not yet commercially 
     available; or
       ``(ii) available technology in an innovative application 
     that maximizes energy efficiency and sustainability;
       ``(B) have the greatest potential for testing or 
     demonstrating new technologies or processes; and
       ``(C) ensure active student participation in the project, 
     including the planning, implementation, evaluation, and other 
     phases of the project.
       ``(3) Condition.--As a condition of receiving a grant under 
     this subsection, an institution of higher education shall 
     agree to submit to the Secretary, and make available to the 
     public, reports that describe the results of the projects 
     carried out under paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Awarding of Grants.--
       ``(1) Application.--An institution of higher education that 
     seeks to receive a grant under this section may submit to the 
     Secretary an application for the grant at such time, in such 
     form, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     prescribe.
       ``(2) Selection.--The Secretary shall establish a committee 
     to assist in the selection of grant recipients under this 
     section.
       ``(e) Allocation to Institutions of Higher Education With 
     Small Endowments.--Of the amount of grants provided for a 
     fiscal year under this section, the Secretary shall provide 
     not less than 50 percent of the amount to institutions of 
     higher education that have an endowment of not more than 
     $100,000,000, with 50 percent of the allocation set aside for 
     institutions of higher education that have an endowment of 
     not more than $50,000,000.
       ``(f) Grant Amounts.--The maximum amount of grants for a 
     project under this section shall not exceed--
       ``(1) in the case of grants for energy efficiency 
     improvement under subsection (b), $1,000,000; or
       ``(2) in the case of grants for innovation in energy 
     sustainability under subsection (c), $500,000.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.''.
       Amend the table of contents accordingly.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 615, the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the 
dean of the House, Mr. Dingell. Last night I needed his help, and he 
gave it to me to help make this amendment in order. He told me a story, 
and it was a simple story: If you have a chance to help somebody, take 
it. And it is a good lesson to live by. Although, he didn't say he was 
for the amendment, I hope he finds the content of the amendment okay as 
well as being in order. And I want to thank his staff for the 
tremendous work they have done.
  This amendment is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It establishes or 
authorizes the Federal fund to support energy sustainability and energy 
efficiency projects on colleges and universities campuses through 
grants, authorizes but doesn't appropriate.
  Public institutions are playing a major role in this energy debate. 
They lead by example. Giving them the possibility of having funds to 
actually implement programs would be a very good thing.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BOUCHER. I want to thank the gentleman from Vermont for yielding 
and commend him on bringing this amendment before the committee. It 
would establish a grant program for colleges and universities to invest 
in sustainable and efficient energy projects. I think this is a step 
forward for energy policy and I would encourage adoption of the 
amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from Vermont for 
his thoughtful amendment, and I thank Chairman Dingell as well for 
helping him, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Boucher, and all 
of our Members for dialoguing on this very crucial issue.
  I happen to represent the University of Houston that has brought a 
wind research project to Houston, a $24 million project, and I know 
that Texas has enormous amount of commitment to wind.
  This research grant program will help other universities look at 
issues such as fossil fuel and the efficiency of it, refineries and the 
efficiency of it, exploration and the efficiency of it in other places 
other than public lands. So I am here to support this amendment and as 
well to support the underlying energy bill, H.R. 3221.
  I thank the gentleman, Mr. Welch. Universities around America will 
look forward to this grant program, including Texas Southern University 
and many other universities that we have in my district.
  Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I think it is imperative that we 
all agree on the vital importance of America achieving energy 
independence in the 21st century. We must end our addiction to foreign 
sources of oil, most of which are found in regions of the world which 
are unstable and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, 
there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security 
than energy independence.
  Although I must admit that I do have reservations about certain 
aspects of this bill, I nevertheless support it as a step in the right 
direction of America achieving energy independence. H.R. 3221, the New 
Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer 
Protection Act is important and multifaceted legislation which will 
make substantial strides towards energy independence and security for 
our Nation, while also encouraging the development of innovative new 
technologies, creating new jobs, reducing carbon emissions, protecting 
consumers, shifting production to clean and renewable energy, and 
modernizing our energy infrastructure.
  I would like to begin by commending the Speaker of the House, Ms. 
Pelosi, for her leadership in introducing this legislation and bringing 
it to the floor. The bill we have before us today represents the work 
of eleven House committees, and it fulfills the Democrats' promise to 
bring a comprehensive new direction to the people of the United States.
  In addition to being from the energy capital of the world, for the 
past 12 years I have been the Chair of the Energy Braintrust of the 
Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a variety 
of energy Braintrusts designed to bring in all of the relevant players 
ranging from environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of 
sectors including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and 
alternative energy sources as well as energy producers from West 
Africa. My Energy Braintrusts were designed to be a call of action to 
all of the sectors who comprise the American and international energy 
industry, to the African American community, and to the nation as a 
whole.
  Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing 
more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, 
and greater economic and national security. Bringing together 
thoughtful yet disparate voices to engage each other on the issue of 
energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a transformative 
dialectic

[[Page H9860]]

which can ultimately result in reforming our energy industry to the 
extent that we as a Nation achieve energy security and energy 
independence.
  Because I represent the city of Houston, the energy capital of the 
world, I realize that many oil and gas companies provide many jobs for 
many of my constituents and serve a valuable need. The energy industry 
in Houston exemplifies the stakeholders who must be instrumental in 
devising a pragmatic strategy for resolving our national energy crisis. 
That is why it is crucial that while seeking solutions to secure more 
energy independence within this country, we must strike a balance that 
will still support an environment for continued growth in the oil and 
gas industry, which I might add, creates millions of jobs across the 
entire country.
  We have many more miles to go before we achieve energy independence. 
Consequently, I am willing, able, and eager to continue working with 
Houston's and our Nation's energy industry to ensure that we are moving 
expeditiously on the path to crafting an environmentally sound and 
economically viable energy policy. Furthermore, I think it is 
imperative that we involve small, minority and women owned, and 
independent energy companies in this process because they represent 
some of the hard working Americans and Houstonians who are on the 
forefront of energy efficient strategies to achieving energy 
independence.

  This bill contains numerous important provisions. It represents a 
major national investment in renewable energy that has the potential to 
create 3 million ``green'' jobs. Further, it provides training 
opportunities for American workers, particularly our disadvantaged 
groups and our brave veterans, to fill these new positions. It gives 
small businesses the tools they need to be more energy efficient, 
including technical assistance. It encourages research and innovation 
into new energy technology, including biofuels, carbon capture, and 
solar energy. It encourages mass transit and alternative fuels, it 
protects Federal lands and wildlife, and it promotes the efficient use 
of energy.
  However, I am concerned that H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and 
Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, contains provisions repealing tax 
incentives for oil and gas companies which may have a negative effect 
on access to important sources of energy. In particular, I am concerned 
that the domestic manufacturing deduction, Section 199 of H.R. 2776, 
could discourage new domestic oil and natural gas investment by making 
these investments comparatively less competitive than competing foreign 
investments. Moving forward, I think it would be prudent for this 
Congress to consider linking an increase on taxes with an increase in 
access to domestic exploration of available sources of energy, such as 
the Gulf Coast.
  According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), America's 
deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contain 420 trillion 
cubic feet of natural gas (the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year) and 86 
billion barrels of oil (the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year). Even 
with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion 
(and countless American jobs) overseas every year for energy we can 
create at home. I believe that we should mandate environmentally safe 
and efficient exploration techniques in the Gulf Coast which energy 
companies have demonstrated a willingness and capacity to utilize. By 
ensuring access to increasing sources of energy in an environmentally 
conscious way, I believe we can decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
  This bill also contains a crucial international component. Global 
climate change is a truly global problem. It is real; it is imminent; 
and it is our responsibility to work with the rest of the international 
community to develop a coordinated global response to this potentially 
devastating phenomenon. This legislation calls for the United States to 
re-engage and lead international efforts to reach an agreement 
requiring binding emissions reduction commitments from all major 
emitters, including China, India, and Brazil. A truly monumental 
diplomatic effort is needed to begin to arrest the catastrophic effects 
of climate change, and this bill is an important step toward beginning 
global negotiations to establish a coordinated response.
  Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to work with the Chairman of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs to incorporate important language in this 
legislation to ensure that its provisions and benefits are available to 
some of our nation's disadvantaged populations. My language, seen in 
Section 2102 of H.R. 3221, guarantees that Historically Black Colleges 
and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and 
Universities, and other Minority Serving Institutions are able to 
participate in the visits and exchanges between scientific researchers 
of the United States and other nations provided for in this bill. My 
amendment would also seek to include minority- and women-owned 
businesses in these exchange programs.
  Additionally, I worked with the Chairman and the Committee to include 
language that global climate change negotiations would address the 
perspectives and concerns of indigenous and tribal populations, who 
often bear the brunt of climate change but have traditionally been 
neglected in the negotiation process.
  Furthermore, I support innovative solutions to our national energy 
crisis such as my legislation which alleviates our dependence on 
foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote 
the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology.

  The Energy Information Administration estimates that the United 
States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. The world's 
greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of high geopolitical 
risk, including 57 percent of which are in the Persian Gulf.
  Replacing oil imports with domestic alternatives such as traditional 
and cellulosic ethanol can not only help reduce the $180 billion that 
oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, it can end our addiction 
to foreign oil. According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can 
displace 30 percent of our Nation's petroleum consumption.
  Along with traditional production of ethanol from corn, cellulosic 
ethanol can be produced domestically from a variety of feedstocks, 
including switchgrass, corn stalks and municipal solid wastes, which 
are available throughout our nation. Cellulosic ethanol also relies on 
its own byproducts to fuel the refining process, yielding a positive 
energy balance. Whereas the potential production of traditional corn-
based ethanol is about 10 billion gallons per year, the potential 
production of cellulosic ethanol is estimated to be 60 billion gallons 
per year.
  In addition to ensuring access to more abundant sources of energy, 
replacing petroleum use with ethanol will help reduce U.S. carbon 
emissions, which are otherwise expected to increase by 80 percent by 
2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87 
percent. Thus, transitioning from foreign oil to ethanol will protect 
our environment from dangerous carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.
  I also commend my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for his 
amendment which would establish a grant program for colleges and 
universities to invest in sustainable and efficient energy projects. I 
commend the University of Houston, which led the Lone Star Wind 
Alliance succeed in bringing one of the Department of Energy's large 
turbine-testing facilities to the Texas Gulf Coast. This major step 
forward in developing clean, renewable wind energy will result in the 
University of Houston directing a $24 million world-class research and 
test facility in Texas. This will ensure that Texas becomes a global 
leader in wind energy technology, which will be assisted by pledges 
from the Lone Star Wind Alliance of $18 million, by the Texas 
Legislature of $5 million, and $2 million from the Department of 
Energy.
  Mr. Chairman, this comprehensive legislation addresses the full range 
of concerns raised by global climate change. It offers wide-ranging 
solutions to the serious problems we, as a Nation and as an 
international community, face. It demonstrates the ongoing commitment 
of this Democratic Congress to address these important issues, and to 
provide tangible and beneficial solutions.
  I urge my colleagues to be balanced and prudent in their approach in 
addressing our energy needs. By investing in renewable energy and 
increasing access to potential sources of energy, I believe we can be 
partners with responsible members of America's energy producing 
community in our collective goal of reaching energy independence.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in doubt about the 
amendment. I would like to engage the author in a colloquy.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman rise in opposition?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I guess for the time being I am in mild 
opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. And I may not be in opposition. I want to ask 
the distinguished author: these grants that would be established if the 
program were to be established, would they be granted on a competitive 
basis?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Yes, they will.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. So this is not specified certain institutions?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. No, it is not.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would be an open process with criteria, and 
all comers would get to submit an application and then a merit-based 
review of those applications?
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. That is correct.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. With that understanding, I would support the 
amendment.
  I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

[[Page H9861]]

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the desires of our ranking 
member on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill of that amendment offers us clear 
choices on the environment. It lays before us the kind of choices, the 
kind of development we should support. My Republican colleagues and I 
believe that we should support and expand our domestic energy supply.
  This picture is a picture of American energy. This offshore rig 
produces between 100,000 and 150,000 barrels of oil a day from 
America's Outer Continental Shelf. The production is clean, with a 
limited impact on the surrounding ocean. The impact it has causes the 
creation of a new column of ocean life on the legs of the platform.
  During Katrina, these did not spill one drop of oil, not one drop, in 
one of the worst hurricanes in American history. I believe that this 
clean development is what we should produce more of. That is why I am 
going to vote for this bill.
  Many of our friends see life differently. They are going to say that 
this is not the way to produce. To quote my friend from New York, ``Let 
us import as much energy as we possibly can.''
  Now, I have traveled overseas and I have looked at oil production 
overseas. When they say, let's import as much as we can, some of that 
production comes from places like this, with absolutely no 
environmental standards. And we are going to export our problems, 
export the environmental contamination from this country to others, all 
in the guise of making ourselves energy independent.
  Many in the majority of Congress is going to vote today, and I would 
recommend that we very carefully think about the problems that we are 
going to export and think about that tremendous energy industry that 
has developed here and is a model for the rest of the world.
  I thank the ranking member for yielding time and thank the chairman, 
and appreciate the opportunity to speak.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________