To amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to authorized the Secretary of the Interior to grant easements and rights-of-way on the Outer Continental Shelf for activities otherwise authorized by that Act.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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?

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, it does not change that part. It only changes the 45 days to 20 days. If we went to a 45-day comment period, would the gentlewoman then support the bill?

And are there other things in the bill that change that local comment?

Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to change it to the 45 days if that is the gentlewoman's opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

The gentleman's statement said, and I appreciate him correcting that, because there is nothing

in this bill that slashes the environmental impact statement requirements. There is nothing in this bill that slashes any of our environmental laws.

Where are we cutting out the public?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Just in response to my colleague, there is nothing in here that eliminates the public comment period. There is nothing in here that reduces the public comment. As I have said repeatedly, if the big problem is 20 days or 45 days to respond, then I would be happy to go to 45 days for their support on this bill.

In regard to the gentleman's amendment that he offered on the big energy bill, he is perfectly comfortable mandating that a State adopt 15 percent of their energy coming from a renewable resource but he is unwilling to do anything to make that happen. What we are trying to do in this particular piece of legislation is make it easier for people to build renewable energy projects. That right now has proven to be extremely difficult. In flying from the State of New Mexico, which is mostly public lands, into the State of Texas, you cross a line. On one side of the line they have renewable energy projects. On the other side of the line, they do not. It is the same conditions, the same wind, yet it is that much more difficult to build on public lands in the State of New Mexico than it is on private lands in the State of Texas. In my area of the country, in California, in my particular district, we have thousands of windmills. None of those are built on public land. They are built on private land. But you have to build windmills where the wind blows. You cannot just do it where somebody thinks it is a good idea. What we are trying to do is make it easier for people to build where the conditions are. In some cases that happens to be on public lands. That is what we are trying to do.

I do not understand how they can keep talking about being in favor of renewable energy and then scramble around and try to find a reason to be opposed to this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

And I never stop that.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, when one has a project, and I will take windmills, when one has a project and the wind blows on this hill and it is public land and they go to BLM and say we want to build a project of 200 windmills on this piece of land, the BLM looks at that. They go through all their environmental review, and they tell them yes or they tell them no. That is what we are trying to do. We do not want to spend 10 years in court deciding whether or not it meets all of the different alternatives that are put out there. If it does not meet all the environmental restrictions that are in place, if it does not have the environmental impact statement, if it does not meet the Endangered Species Act, all of the environmental restrictions, then BLM says no. It is not that complicated. You guys are just scrambling, looking for a reason to vote ``no.''

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

I yield to the gentleman.

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

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

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. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I appreciate the gentleman working with me on this particular amendment, but again I would say that in regard to his final comments there is nothing in this bill that eviscerates, guts, dissects or any other thing our Nation's environmental laws. All it does is it makes the system more efficient by reducing the number of alternatives that have to be looked at on a renewable energy project.

If somebody wants to build a garbage burning incinerator in the middle of a national park, we both know that the answer is no before they even apply for a permit. But I guess trying to scare people on this tries to make things work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4513. It is understandable that there is some confusion among Members about a bill listed on the schedule as the Renewable Energy Siting Improvement Act. After all, H.R. 4513 was recently introduced on June 4 and has not had a single day of hearings or markup in the Committee on Resources. Surely such a noble sounding bill must have a reasonable approach to address real problems.

Sadly, that is not the case with H.R. 4513. If there were a truth-in- labeling requirement under the House rules, this bill should more accurately be called an Act to gut the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Not only is it unwise to fundamentally rewrite NEPA, one of our most important environmental laws, it is unnecessary. It is unwise because this bill would turn NEPA on its head by allowing Federal agencies to avoid considering alternatives to any renewable energy project. Under H.R. 4513, it is up or down. Take it or leave it. It is my way or the highway. The Federal agency must put blinders on, even if a proposed energy project is next to a school or a park and there are more desirable alternative locations.

It is also unwise because the public is given only 20 days to comment on the up or down option being promoted by the Federal agency. As a practical matter, this means that States, local governments and ordinary citizens will be effectively out of the process of Federal agency decision-making on energy project siting.

It is unnecessary because there is no compelling evidence that complying with NEPA has thwarted responsible development of renewable energy in the United States.

Of course, some renewable energy projects are controversial, including wind farms on the mountaintops in my home State of West Virginia, but they are not going to become less controversial if we shut the door on the local citizens as would the pending measure.

In essence, this bill would make Federal agencies more powerful but less well-informed and less accountable to the States and the public than is currently the case under NEPA. In days gone by, such radical legislation would have been derided as big government by the conservatives in this body, but today I fear that H.R. 4513 is only part of a broader assault on NEPA and the public process.

So, to my colleagues from coastal areas, beware. I say beware. Today, it is wind energy. Tomorrow, it could very well be offshore oil and gas leasing.

Voting for this bill today sets a precedent. Pending before us is a feel good bill that does nothing but damage public support for responsible development of renewable energy. Let us not toss NEPA to the wind. Reject H.R. 4513.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First I join with my colleagues in welcoming the gentleman from Louisiana back to the Congress. We know he has been through quite a battle and our prayers and thoughts were with him. I am glad to see that his full vim and vigor and rhetorical flourishes are back with us as well, the Billy Tauzin of old. It is good to have the gentleman back.

Let me say in response to some of his comments as well as my distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, as my good chairman knows and all Members of the body, I come from a coal-producing region of this country. Southern West Virginia has some of the best coal in the world. That is not just a parochial statement. I say to the gentleman that I certainly support the clean coal technology that is in the energy bill, even though it is peanuts compared to the tax credits and all the other goodies the oil industry gets, which is the main reason for my opposition to that bill. Nevertheless, clean coal technology is good, but we need more than lip service paid to clean coal technology if we want to develop alternative sources of energy in this country.

And in response to the gentleman's question of what am I for, I am for producing that coal. I am for the advanced technologies that would turn coal into gas and liquid fuel. That is what we need, are credits, incentives, other vehicles that will make it attractive for industry to produce that alternative fuel from coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal in this world. It makes no sense that we do not put in true incentives for developing that coal. I myself quite honestly would rather see a surface coal mining project than a windmill farm. That can be effectively reclaimed. It produces jobs both in the initial mining and in the reclamation process and in some cases can even clean up our environment better than previous to the mining. It certainly can provide better job-creating opportunities in the long run, such as industrial parks, the flatland is such a premium in the terrain from which I come, and other related industry that comes from such a project.

This current bill by eliminating the public input, by speeding it up so quickly that the public does not have an adequate say in the approval or disapproval process, in my opinion, does not add one iota to improving and increasing our domestic energy supplies. That is my problem with this bill, is that it does run roughshod over that process and I do not see where it is necessary to change that process, because that process, in this gentleman's opinion, has not hampered our energy production in this country. I want to see our domestic sources of energy explored further so we can indeed produce energy that this country needs without reliance upon foreign sources.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I would respond to the gentleman, the biggest problem I have is eliminating alternatives that are available to a project. It is either, as I understand the bill, the developer's alternative or no alternative to a project. That in my opinion is more devastating than limiting the public input time to 20 days which, the gentleman is correct, is the time limit in the bill. That is the problem that I have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), a distinguished member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a valued member of our Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in response to several comments made on the other side and in further response to what I said earlier, it is not the fact that the majority is trying to eliminate completely the public comment phase of NEPA.

As I noted in my opening comments, they would limit that to 20 days, and I understand through the debate there is going to be an offer to extend that to 45 days; but that is not the main issue that we have tried to make on this side of the aisle.

The main issue is the fact that in the pending legislation, alternatives to renewable energy development would be eliminated. Take one example from my home State of West Virginia. If a developer comes in and wants to develop a wind farm on a beautiful mountain site in Pocahontas County, then the way this bill is constructed, there are only two alternatives. Either the developer's initial proposal accepted or rejected; or a rejection, no project at all.

There would be no process whereby alternative sites would be considered, whether for environmental or whether for economic or whether for social or whatever other reasons may come into play. The developer could not consider an alternative site maybe over another mountain ridge, because this pending bill, by wiping out the Federal agency's alternative to look at alternatives, strikes that completely; and that is the main reason that I am opposing this bill.

We have asked for sites from the majority, for examples of sites that have been delayed because of unnecessary NEPA regulations. The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) finally came up with one site. She mentioned a windmill farm in the Cape Cod area, and I would like to respond by reading from the developer himself. This is from Dennis Duffy, the vice president of regulatory affairs for the Cape Wind Associates, as quoted in the Cape Cod Times, when he said, ``The Cape Wind, the developer in this case, fully agrees with the Federal authority that offshore commercial activity should be based on a full and fair review of proposed developments, including consideration of human, economic, social, and environmental factors as well as other potential uses of the seas.''

He went on, ``The ongoing review of the Cape Wind project is proceeding in full compliance with the provisions of both NEPA and the Coastal Zone Management Act and specifically includes the preparation of comprehensive EIS and the consideration of alternative project locations.''

So the example cited by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), I submit, is not one that calls for the gutting of NEPA.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is unnecessary. The proponents have failed to produce projects that have been held up that would call for the enactment of this legislation.

In addition, there have been charges from the other side that politics come into play on this legislation. Well, I am kind of shocked. The last I checked, they are in control of the agenda in this body. Our side is not in control of that agenda. The last time I checked, this is part of an energy message week, originally scheduled for last week but postponed until this week. And I dare say that a few of the bills on the agenda in this body this week, while no doubt will pass, will never see the light of day in the other body because more reasoned and judgmental Members will make decisions thereupon.

So I think that is a false charge and one that should never have been brought up in the first place.

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

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

I guess the Speaker was calling into question my describing the other body as the reason?

No. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this side. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, although not in opposition to the amendment, I wish to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the gentleman from California's amendment clarifying the obvious fact that oil and gas and coal are not renewable energy sources.

I do not think though that this is the end of the attempts to expand NEPA exemptions, and I urge those concerned about the integrity of coastal areas to remain vigilant. I would note, however, that even with this amendment, the pending legislation could be construed as providing NEPA exemptions to the construction of new hydropower dams on rivers and it could apply to incinerators using garbage or other waste products.

As I read the text, the exemptions in this bill include hydropower and incinerators which general power. As the gentleman from California is well aware, siting of dams and incinerators are very controversial matters and it is important, I believe, that the public knows what we are doing here on the floor today to their rights.

Mr. Speaker I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for the time.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 4513, the Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act of 2004. This bill will greatly aid in our efforts to fill out our Nation's energy portfolio in a balanced way and in a complete manner.

We hear so often that we do not have enough renewable energy sources contributing to America's insatiable appetite for cheap and abundant energy. Here is an opportunity to increase the role that renewables play in our energy production, helping to create a safer and smarter national energy policy.

The problem that our Nation has with providing abundant and cheap energy to manufacturing plants, to agriculture users, to schools, to office buildings and to homes is not that we do not have enough energy. We have

plenty. In my home State of Wyoming, we have several hundred years of supply of low sulfur coal, clean burning natural gas and easily attainable uranium, and the wind, well, it never stops blowing in Wyoming. So if we have plenty of energy, both fossil fuels and renewables, then what is the problem?

It is simple. There are those who will stop at nothing to stop any development of any kind of our natural resources, no matter how responsibly it is done. There are those radical environmentalists that file so many lawsuits that it makes even an ambulance-chasing attorney blush.

Through the death of a thousand cuts, these same environmentalists will drag out and attempt to halt any effort to provide energy that helps our economy grow, whether it be updating transmission lines, producing natural gas or coal with the newest of technologies or even putting up an environmentally sensitive wind farm.

Just last year, I introduced H.R. 793, which was included in the conference report of H.R. 4 and in H.R. 4503, which the House will consider later today. This bill would address the need for statutory authority to permit future alternative energy projects on the outer continental shelf. Such projects would include energy projects such as wind, wave and solar power production. But that bill, too, was opposed by people all across the environmental community, and it was opposed particularly in Nantucket where a wind farm was already planned and financed several miles off the coast. These are the very same people who claim to be strongly supportive of alternative forms of energy, but refuse to allow even a single windmill many miles off their coast.

This hypocrisy is simply unacceptable. The bill before us is an opportunity to support the expedited, but thorough, environmental of renewable energy projects. H.R. 4513 merely requires the Federal agency focus on the actual proposed renewable energy project rather than conjure up a whole bunch of fantasy alternative projects in the name of jumping through the procedural hurdles of NEPA. The alternative energy project, if found to be environmentally unacceptable, will still be rejected by the Federal agency involved.

It is simple. Either Members are for renewable energy or they are not. It is time to move forward. The approach on alternatives in this bill was extensively debated during the consideration of the Healthy Forest legislation, and it is not a novel approach. It is consistent with NEPA. Reducing the number of alternatives in a NEPA study is a necessary step to reduce costly legislation that prevents capital investment in renewable energy projects.

I strongly urge Members' support of H.R. 4513 and ask that those who claim to be in support of renewable energy sources put their vote where their mouth is and support a bill that actually allows renewable energy projects to get off the ground and out of the courthouses.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I guess he has left the floor, one such wind project that has been held up by lawsuits is a project off Nantucket Sound. The investors are there; the money is there. But there has been a lot of opposition to that wind project.

I do have to agree with the gentleman from Colorado on one thing. Everything that has been said here today is about politics, but it is about politics on that side of the aisle. They want to have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They want to say they support renewable energy production in the United States, but they do not because they look for anything they can find to vote against any proposal that is made going in the right direction to increase our renewable energy supply.

Let us talk about this just for a minute. I want to explain the process of a NEPA review. There is an investor that spends millions and millions of dollars in order to put together a proposal to bring it to the point that it asks for an environmental review. Beyond that, the government spends millions and millions and millions of dollars going through this analysis, compiling the information. So if one asks for a project, a renewable energy project, the actual effect that this bill will have by reducing the number of alternatives is that it will make the investor come with the best environmental deal he can possibly put together because he has only got one shot at it. All of those millions have to be spent before he makes one penny. He has got one shot at it. Either the project is approved or it is not. Not one environmental aspect is changed. There is no lowering of the public comment. The only difference is the time. And as the chairman said, he will increase the scoping period to 45 days.

But I ask you to quit trying to have it both ways. Think of America before you think of your own personal politics and the politics of the extreme environmental organizations of this country. They come right out and they say they do not want any production. Why do you not be honest and say the same. In your mind it is all about defeating George Bush. You are putting politics first.

We need to produce energy for this country because we are nationally in jeopardy; our safety is in jeopardy; and our future and the future of our children is in jeopardy. So I ask the Members to support this bill. Allow these projects to be heard and not held up in courts of law for 10 or 15 years.

Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment to thank all of the Members of the House on both sides of the aisle for so many expressions of love and support, and most importantly, their prayers in the last several months. They have meant a great deal to me. I am so happy to be back working for the salary and doing my job for the people of Louisiana.

It is a particular pleasure to join Members in a week we are taking up energy, which has been so much of the subject of my congressional career in the past 24 years; and I am pleased to join the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the other Members who are rising in support of this very worthwhile bill.

This is about common sense. The one thing we have lacked in energy policy in America is common sense. We passed an amazingly complex energy bill, and we will vote on that conference report again this week, and ask our colleagues in the other body to please take it up for the sake of our country, at a time when we are experiencing outrageous gasoline prices and there are blackouts in Arizona and New Mexico which are having problems with their grids, and as we are experiencing large blackouts in the northeast which could be repeated because the energy bill we passed has not been signed into law and will do something to put in place standards for conduct on those electric grids that are going to keep them sound and stable in the future.

While we sit and play party politics and silly arguments about legal constraints of one kind or another, our country suffers from a dearth of energy, and yet we continue to consume it at alarming rates and become more and more dependent upon people we cannot depend upon to send us energy.

We have not built a refinery in this country in 25 years, and yet in the last 25 years we have built 751 million new automobiles and trucks to ply our highways. Where do Members think it comes from if we are not going to produce it at home? We had great debates about a bill that contained not only conservation provisions but new initiatives to produce new oil and gas and coal and other energy in this country, and great provisions for renewable energy. But what stands in the way to get renewable energy on board in this country is all of the laws which have been passed to stop the other energy projects.

What our chairman has brought to us is a bill of commons sense which says if renewable energy projects are a priority in America, if Members really believe that, if that is what really is behind their energy policy in all of the debates this House has had, and the Senate ought to have real soon if we are going to pass an energy bill for our country, if renewable energy is really our best option, then we need to make sure it does not get tied up in legal knots.

It says that when a renewable energy project is offered under NEPA, that you have got two choices: You either find out that the site chosen is a good site and it ought to be built here or you do not build it there. Public comments and local government involvement is still permitted, in fact encouraged in that process. Nobody says you have to build a renewable facility under this bill. It simply says you have got two choices: Build it or do not build it. But do not tie it up in legal knots.

What legal knots are we talking about? NEPA was constructed to make sure that if an oil and gas refinery was going to ever be built in this country, that before it was built the Environmental Protection Agency had to look at every other possible site it could be built at and rule them all out before you could build it here. If you take that view with every renewable facility, every energy project that was designed to produce energy from clean, green, renewable energy, then you are giving those people who do not want to see anything built the option of tying it up in legal knots.

What the chairman is offering you is a bill that says for this priority energy, good, clean, green energy for America, at least do not tie that up in legal knots. Either build it where it is proposed to be built or decide after public comments are published and listened to and digested that the site is wrong and you should not build it at all and then go look for another site. It does not cut off public comment. It does not cut off total environmental review for health and safety reasons. It does not cut out

total assessment of the site chosen. It simply says, do not tie it up in legal knots. At least move these energy projects forward so that we do not have to depend so much on foreign oil and on countries we cannot depend upon.

It comes down to this, folks. We either start doing some things like this in this country or we are still going to have to keep sending our sons and daughters to die in some other country protecting an oil field or refinery located in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran or somewhere else. Think about it that way. Is it not time we in America value our own sons and daughters a little better than that? Would you not like to see the 35,000 people who are working in Saudi Arabia today who have been ordered home because there have been threats for their lives, would you not rather see them working in America building a wind farm or a renewable energy project? This bill says you can come home. You can work in America. We are going to start building some projects that are clean and green and good for this country.

Those who vote against it are saying, We don't want to build anything. We would rather keep sending our sons and our daughters into treacherous lands in the uniform of our country to die to defend somebody else's oil field, somebody else's refinery. This is commonsense stuff. Whatever we disagreed about before, we ought not disagree on this one. Let us build some good green energy facilities in America. If you do not like where they are sited, shut them down, go build them somewhere else, but let us speed this process along. That is all that Chairman Pombo wants. That is all this country ought to at least get out of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I join today with a dozen national environmental organizations in opposing legislation rushed to the House floor to gut the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as three other shopworn legislative assaults on conservation statutes.

In recent months, the Republican congressional leadership has packaged groups of bills--often proposals rejected in the past--for congressional votes to highlight a partisan rhetorical theme. This week's emphasis is on energy policy, bringing a battery of four measures before the House. These measures include provisions to open the Arctic National Refuge for energy exploration and to provide liability protection for groundwater contaminants. None of the bills will reach the Senate; none will become law.

While none of these proposals will become law, they reflect the congressional leadership's obsession with private energy speculators over the public interest. In recent years the Congress has rubber- stamped Bush Administration proposals to defer stewardship of public lands to mining, grazing and timber interests. Today, the Leadership is offering an even bigger prize, the gutting of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The ``Renewable Energy Project Siting Improving Act'' is designed to weaken one of the bedrock federal environmental protection statutes, ostensibly to ``promote'' renewable energy. When enacted 30 years ago at the behest of President Nixon, NEPA was landmark legislation to create a coherent and predictable framework for responsible environmental decisions--among other things, guiding the scope and preparation of environmental impact statements (EIS). Many states, including Massachusetts, have used NEPA as models for their own statutes.

The NEPA-related bill brought before the Congress today would:

Effectively eliminate the EIS by forbidding public agencies from even considering alternatives to a project under review;

Broaden the definition of a ``renewable energy project, potentially to include coal mines, oil shale, or even oil and gas drilling; and,

Cut back the comment period on proposed projects to 20 days, making it virtually impossible for states or the public at large to participate.

Given the sweeping nature of these proposed changes, it is particularly galling that the legislation reached the House floor within days of its original introduction--and without a single hour of committee deliberation. As the Medicare discount cards were a gift to the pharmaceutical industry, the energy siting bill would grant substantial new leverage to the energy industry developers of a wide range of projects, from hydroelectric dams to wood-burning plants to offshore wind farms.

If this Congress has any real desire to promote renewable energy, a perfect place to start is with policies and standards to develop offshore wind power. Our oceans provide significant opportunities to develop renewable energy from the wind. Projects of all sizes are being considered up and down the east coast, as well as in Nantucket Sound-- nominated on several occasions by federal and state officials to be designated a national marine sanctuary, until Congress placed a national moratorium on that process.

Even though the Congress has yet to authorize the use of federal waters for this purpose, developers are floating trial balloon projects in many locations. In the wake of all this interest, the consensus in Congress and among a number of federal, state and local officials is that we need new and better policies--not less scrutiny--to guide the siting and licensing of these projects.

Even President Bush's Ocean Commission agrees. They were charged with developing practical recommendations to improve the management of our coast. They rightly condemn the current regulatory process led by the Army Corps of Engineers, but at the same time outline a number of constructive recommendations which could accelerate the development of responsible offshore wind farms. Yet not one of the commission's recommendations can be found in this proposal; and on occasion has the President's Ocean Commission cited NEPA as an issue of concern.

At the very least, the Congress could consider my own bipartisan proposal, the Offshore Renewable Energy Promotion Act, which authorizes the use of our oceans for renewable energy projects. It creates a siting process that brings together states, fishermen, mariners and other marine interests to first identify the best sites, uses and scale of projects. It embraces the concept of ocean zoning, an approach similar to that used on land where local officials guide development to the best locations, protecting important natural resources and minimizing conflicting uses.

The proposal I introduced with Republican Congressman Jim Saxton, builds on existing coastal zone planning efforts. It proposes a transparent bidding and licensing process that is open to all, even municipal or local utilities, similar to offshore oil and gas. Even the ocean task force established by Republican Governor Mitt Romney strongly criticizes the current first-come first-served approach, which rewards developers to exploit gaps in current law.

It's bad enough that the Leadership insists on taking valuable floor time to rehash bills that the Congress has already debated and voted on. It's inconceivable that, in the name of renewable energy, we're asked to turn one of our most effective environmental statutes into one of the biggest loopholes in the U.S. Code.

That's why this bill has earned the vigorous opposition of the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, the National Environmental Trust, National Wildlife Foundation, World Wildlife Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, Union of Concerned Scientists, National Resources Defense Council and countless others with genuine concern about environmental protection. On their behalf, I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting in opposition to H.R. 4513.