Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in response to my colleagues' comments on the bill, I am not exactly sure where the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) is going with his opposition. We have spent so much time on energy legislation over the past several years in the committee in trying to work this out; and one of the things I hear repeatedly from the other side of the aisle is we need to do more on renewables, we need to have more effort put into having alternative energy and renewables and environmentally friendly energy production. This bill does that. It streamlines the process. It in no way guts NEPA. It does not change a word of any of the environmental requirements under NEPA. It does not prevent the States from commenting or change the States' ability to comment on that, or the ability for our constituents, the citizens of this country, to comment on any of the proposals that are put before us. All of that stays in place. All it does is in reducing the number of alternatives that are required of someone to come forward with is it streamlines the process. Now, if there is something that is being built next to a school or a national park, and I love hearing that, then the agency with oversight says no. It is that simple. If somebody is that ignorant that they are going to come forward with a project next to a school or in the middle of a national park, they say no. Then they go to a different project. All we are trying to do is speed up the process. I love listening to the other side of the aisle talk about how we need to do more on alternative energy; and when we went through all the debate on the energy bill, we talked about how we need to do more on bringing alternative energy projects to the forefront. We are trying to do that in this bill, and the other side of the aisle is still opposed to it. I am coming to the conclusion that the other side of the aisle is opposed to doing anything that produces energy. If they do not support this, and they do not support the energy bill, what are they in favor of? What do they think is a good idea to produce more energy for this country? If they come up with some ideas, I will work with them. We did the energy bill, which was a balanced approach. We did this bill, which is to put more emphasis on nonpolluting energy sources; and they are still opposed to it. At some point they have to come forward and say we are in favor of something because our country is running out of energy. Our country is in a terrible mess on natural gas prices, on gasoline prices, on electricity prices. Everything is going up. We have shortages all over the country in different parts for different reasons; and everything that we propose to try to take care of that, they are opposed to it. Granted, the environmental groups have a long and storied history on opposing anything, and I can take that. But as Members of Congress, we need to step forward and be leaders and say this is how we are going to take care of our energy problems into the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. By our standards, this is an extremely short bill. It is 2\1/2\ pages. I have read and reread and looked at this. I do not see in here where they say that we are eliminating the public comment. It says consider public comments that specifically address the preferred action that are filed within 20 days. If it is the time limit part, if that is where they have the major heartburn over this, I will go to current law and 45 days if their opposition to the bill is based upon that. Because there is nothing else in here that eliminates all of the public comment that is currently required and accepted under NEPA. I am not sure where they are getting that. They might have read it in somebody's memo, but it is not in the bill.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin). (Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, where in the bill does it strike the need for environmental impact statements?

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I have just myself as the closing speaker. Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) have additional speakers?

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time and will just say I appreciate the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Rahall) statement, and we have had over the last year and a half a chance to work together on a lot of different issues. I will tell my colleagues, on this bill we are trying to streamline the process and move it along. The gentleman's example, the letter that he read from the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think is a valuable example of what is wrong with the current system. If you actually look at the letter that the gentleman just read, he does not say in there that the process has not been held up by the current system. He is saying that they are going along with the current NEPA process and the EIS process and everything else, and I agree with that. I believe that NEPA is an extremely valuable tool for the Federal Government and for our bureaucrats out there to make sure that anything that is going forward on public lands has the minimal impact on the environment, and that is what we should do. But in the gentleman's example about someone wanting to build a windmill farm in a pristine site, if that is the case, if someone comes forward with a windmill farm in a pristine site that BLM or Park Service or Forest Service or anyone else says they do not want windmill farms there, they say no. What we are trying to avoid is multiple years of going through the process of studying non-viable options to that specific project, and that is what is considered under current law. If you want examples of where this is not working, all you have to do is look at the difference between New Mexico and Texas. Where in Texas they are developing alternative energy and they have windmill sites on the public lands, across the border in New Mexico they are not building them. It is not because anybody was told no, it is because the developers look at it and they say, I can build here and start within a year or two. If I try to do it on public lands, it is going to take me 4, 5 or 10 years to go through the process. So they do not even try. If you are in favor of doing alternative energy projects, then you have to support this bill, because that is what we are doing. We are trying to streamline the process in order to bring those projects on. The gentleman from Oregon earlier talked about the wind energy tax credit. I am a huge proponent of that. We have windmills in my district. If it was not for the tax credit, they never would have been built. But they were built on private land. None of the public land has windmills on it because of the process that they have to go through. If the gentleman is angry about the wind energy tax credit, that is simple: Just tell the Senate to pass the energy bill. It is in there. We have passed it out of here three times already. So as we move forward with this legislation, I would encourage my colleagues on the left to take another look at it, because this truly is an intent to bring more alternative energy into the process and to make it a viable industry for all of the people that are out there trying to find different ways, other than fossil fuel, to power our country. Finally, I would say to my friend from West Virginia, when you are talking about windmills, you have to build them where the wind is. You cannot go to the developer and say we want you to pick an alternative site. That is like going to your coal miners and saying we want you to pick an alternative site. They have to mine where the coal is. You cannot tell them go look in my district in California. We do not have coal. In your district you do. That is why they mine for coal there. Well, we have wind. That is where the wind is, and that is where you have to build the windmills. That is the same thing on public lands, you have to build them where the wind blows. To try to tell them they have to pick an alternative site, really, you are not accomplishing anything if you truly want to bring alternative energy into the market. Finally, I would just say as we move forward with this bill, if there are specific issues in here that the gentleman wants to work on, I will work with him on it, and he knows that. If it is 20 days or 45 days, we can look at the difference between doing that. But we really do need to move forward with this bill.

Mr. POMBO. And I never stop that.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not what NEPA is all about. But what we are trying to do is make the system less bureaucratic, more efficient, force whoever is applying for the permit in that project to actually go at it in a way that it could become a reality. Right now, as the gentleman knows and I know, these projects are not being built on public lands and a big part of the reason is the bureaucracy.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman support the bill if we went to a 45-day comment period?

Mr. POMBO. You are voting ``no'' on politics, and you know it.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would clarify that the environmental review process in H.R. 4513 would not apply to oil and gas leasing activities. This amendment would remove any confusion about what this bill does or does not do. We have discussed this bill with the minority and they offered this change to the base text. After having gone back and forth, I believe this is a necessary change to the underlying bill to eliminate any confusion that there may be. By making this change, this amendment incorporates all of their proposed changes, short of rewriting the bill. Rewriting this bill would mean doing nothing to promote renewable energy development, which I find unacceptable. I support this amendment, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4513 expedites the development of renewable energy projects such as wind, tidal, solar, and geothermal by streamlining, but not weakening, the environmental review process. The bill instructs the responsible agency to review and take public comment only on the most feasible project. Simplifying the process is necessary to incentivize participation in renewable energy projects which are economically marginal to start. The bottom line is that H.R. 4513 encourages developers to commit capital to renewable energy projects and puts the government in position to put that capital to work sooner. NEPA requires review of reasonable alternatives, and H.R. 4513 takes the intelligent step of defining ``reasonable'' alternatives for renewable energy projects rather than having it defined through litigation, which those opposed to this bill may ultimately want to do. Since renewable energy projects are largely place-based, which means that they can only make use of the site where the resources are found, the only reasonable alternatives are, one, the proposed project, and, two, no action. This bill does nothing to change the requirement that a Federal agency follow the NEPA environmental review process, including mitigation. At the end of the NEPA process, if the agency is not satisfied that the project meets environmental requirements, then the agency official can deny the permit. Despite what agenda-driven extremist groups might suggest, public comment is not limited. Anyone can make comments on the project. It does require that the comments be focused on the preferred action, which is consistent with the NEPA regulations request that comments be as specific as possible. H.R. 4513 has no effect on any other environmental law or action. For example, while H.R. 4513 addresses alternatives during NEPA review of hydroelectric projects, it does nothing to affect any of the environmental safeguards otherwise found in the relicensing process. The bill actually improves an agency's environmental review by focusing on the most viable project rather than having it distracted by misdirected and ineffective alternatives. Renewable energy projects create jobs. Wind power creates 2.77 jobs for every megawatt produced. Solar panels create 7.24 jobs per megawatt, and geothermal energy projects create 5.6 jobs per megawatt. These projects use large amounts of highly skilled labor and can be an engine for local construction and manufacturing jobs that pay family wages. At the end of the day, my colleagues either support renewable energy production or they do not. This bill is necessary because of the costly litigation and bureaucratic roadblocks created by the same groups that oppose this bill. This bill provides the framework for power supplies that are affordable, reliable, secure and sustainable while at the same time fully protecting the quality of our environment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. POMBO. Where are we cutting out the public?

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4513.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the students of the Amador Valley High School civics team, from Pleasanton, California. The 19 seniors and their coach, social studies teacher Matt Campbell are here in Washington to represent California in the ``We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution'' civics competition. This weekend, these bright young men and women will face 49 other teams from around the nation, demonstrating their knowledge of the Constitution of the United States of America and how it has shaped the history and institutions of this land. I am extremely proud of these students, the future leaders of the 11th district of California and the Nation and I wish them the best of luck in the competition. This is not the first time the Amador Valley High School team has been to the National competition. Since 1992, the team has made it to this level four times, and in 1995 they were crowned National Champion. This record of accomplishment is truly a testament to the talented, dedicated teachers of the Amador Valley High School. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating these fine young scholars, and all the students from around the country whose dedication to civics and the history of this great Nation brings them here this week.