Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007

I strongly support this amendment. . . .

I'd like to thank my cousin, Representative Tom Udall, as well as Representative Platts and the rest of our colleagues who have worked so hard to push forward a renewable electricity standard. Speaker Pelosi also deserves our deep gratitude for her support and for working side by side with us during these last few weeks. We all understand the importance of this critical amendment, and I'm proud to have been a longstanding part of this great effort as it culminates in a vote today.

As demand for energy continues to grow in this country, we need to make sure that we continue to have affordable and reliable supplies. And, most importantly, as we move to more competition in the delivery of electricity, we must make sure that the environment and consumers are protected.

So it makes sense to put incentives in place to ensure that less polluting and environmentally friendly sources of energy can find their way into the marketplace. And that's what a renewable electricity standard, or RES, would help to do.

But it's not just about doing the right thing for the environment.

With almost all new electricity generation the last decade fueled by natural gas, our domestic supply cannot sustain our needs. Iran, Russia, and Qatar together hold 58 percent of the world's natural gas reserves. As demand for power continues to grow, we shouldn't be forced to rely on these unstable regions to sustain our economy, nor do we have to.

The best way to decrease our vulnerability and dependence on foreign energy sources is to diversify our energy portfolio. Half of the States in our great Union have already figured this out and have made the commitment to producing a percentage of their electricity using renewable energy. But all of our States will benefit under a national standard, which will bring natural gas costs down nationwide, create new economies of scale in manufacturing and installation, and offer greater predictability to long-term investors.

The Udall-Platts amendment requires utilities nationwide to produce 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy sources by 2020. The amendment also allows up to 4 percent of that 15 percent requirement to be met with energy efficiency.

The amendment's definition of renewables is broad, including biomass--cellulosic organic materials; plant or algal matter from agricultural crops, crop byproducts, or landscape waste; gasified animal waste and landfill gas, or biogas; and all types of crop-based liquid fuels. It includes incremental hydropower; solar and solar water heating; wind; ocean, ocean thermal and tidal; geothermal; and distributed generation. The amendment also allows energy efficiency to make up 27 percent of a utility's targeted requirement. Every State has one or more of these resources.

The Udall-Platts amendment saves consumers billions of dollars. By reducing the cost of new clean technologies and making them more available, it will help restrain natural gas price increases by creating more competition for those fuels.

The Udall-Platts amendment will spur economic development in the form of billions of dollars in new capital investment and in new property tax revenues for local communities, and millions of dollars in new lease payments to farmers and rural landowners.

Not least, the Udall-Platts amendment will reduce air pollution from dirty fossil-fueled power plants that threaten public health and our climate.

The amendment does not burden some regions of the country at the expense of others, as the utilities would have you believe. It creates public benefits for all.

The argument that the Southeast is disadvantaged by the RES--that the Southeast has no renewable resources--ignores the plain truth. In fact, the Southeast is one of the regions of the country that will see the most benefit from this proposal. According to Department of Energy's Energy information Administration, the technology that does best under a 15 percent RES is biomass. Already, 2500 megawatts of generation come from biomass in the Southeast, and much of the waste from pulp and paper mills is not being used to generate electricity.

The Udall-Platts amendment gives States flexibility in achieving the standard.

Under the amendment, states can borrow credits against future renewables generation--for up to three years as long as they are repaid by 2020, which means the effective start date can be delayed and facilities ramped up more slowly.

The amendment gives three renewable energy credits for each kilowatt hour of power generated at on-site eligible facilities used to offset part or all of the customer's requirements. This means solar, small wind, and other distributed energy generation sources used in residential and business locations can earn triple credits.

The amendment also returns money to the States from alternative compliance payments for State weatherization programs, low-income energy assistance programs, and for encouraging the installation of additional renewables.

The amendment also lowers the initial target date for 2010 to 2.75 percent and makes the escalation to 15 percent more gradual so that utilities have more time to ramp-up renewable energy sales.

In summary, this renewable electricity standard will reduce harmful air and water pollution, provide a sustainable, secure energy supply now, and will create new investment, income and jobs in communities all over the country.

It is good for the environment, good for the economy, and good for our country. I strongly urge its adoption.

Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3221 I rise in strong support of this very important legislation. It will begin the process of putting our country on a path toward energy independence, increased national security and economic growth, and addressing global warming. When combined with the legislation from the Ways and Means Committee, it will provide long-term incentives to boost production of electricity from renewable sources, including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, river currents, ocean tides, landfill gas, and trash combustion resources.

Other incentives will help expand production of homegrown fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel and encourage more E-85 pumps to supply flex-fuel vehicles. The bill will encourage manufacturers to build more efficient appliances, help working families afford fuel- efficient plug-in hybrid vehicles, and help businesses create energy- efficient workplaces. It will encourage deployment of renewable energy by enabling electric cooperatives and public power providers to use new clean renewable energy bonds to help finance facilities to generate electricity from renewable resources. And it will help states leverage tax credit bonds to implement low-interest loan programs and grant programs to help working families purchase energy-efficient appliances, and make energy-efficient home improvements. Further, the bill will create an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to train Americans for good ``green'' jobs that will be created by new renewable-energy and energy-efficiency initiatives.

I am glad the bill includes a requirement for a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), added by an amendment by my cousin Rep. Tom Udall, Rep. Todd Platts, and others, including myself. This is a great victory--the first time an RES has ever passed the House of Representatives--and it means that despite the strong opposition of those who prefer the status quo, the movement for positive change has grown stronger. Implementing a national RES will benefit rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security.

There are many other good provisions--but I am particularly proud of parts originating in two Committees on which I serve, which include many provisions based on legislation I introduced.

Science and Technology Committee Provisions

The part of the bill developed by the Committee on Science and Technology includes provisions from two of my bills that will help us mitigate and adapt to climate change, although the bill does not directly address reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

Global Change Research and Data Management

Although we know that climate change is occurring, we still need economic and technical information as well as information about system responses and climate responses to design cost effective policies will achieve emissions reductions and avoid dangerous impacts of future climate change. Subtitle G, the Global Change Research and Data Management Act of 2007, will help provide this information. It will update and improve the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to provide more user-driven research and information. The USGCRP coordinates federal climate change research and has contributed much to our understanding of climate change since its creation in 1990--but we now need to expand this information and tailor it to the needs of decisionmakers confronted with management and mitigation challenges. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Inglis from South Carolina, who is an original cosponsor on the bill that this provision is based on, for his help in improving this language.

Carbon Sequestration Research

Carbon sequestration is one promising technology to help us address climate change. Coal and other fossil fuels have been and will continue to be an important energy source for our country, but coal burning power plants are also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. The carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program authorized in this bill will help us tackle this challenge. This provision will authorize the Department of Energy to conduct two separate projects, with up to five projects for carbon capture and up to seven projects to test for large-scale carbon dioxide injection and storage. Not only will this help us develop this technology and make it more economical, it will also help us understand the implications of storing large amounts of carbon dioxide underground.

We must begin to address the climate change challenge, but we must not cause irreparable harm to our economy in the process. Both of these research provisions will help ensure that we have the technology and the information to address climate change.

Natural Resources Committee Provisions

The part of the bill developed in the Natural Resources Committee will ensure greater accountability from companies drilling for oil and gas on federal lands by, among other things, requiring more audits to ensure American taxpayers received all royalties owed and by ensuring companies that were erroneously given royalty-free leases for drilling will pay fair royalties. This part of the bill also authorizes a nationwide assessment of geological formations capable of sequestering carbon dioxide underground and a review of the potential for carbon sequestration in ecosystems. It calls for development of a national strategy to assist wildlife populations and their habitats and provides states with new funding to assist wildlife in adapting to global warming.

It also has sections based on my bill, H.R. 1180, the ``Western Waters and Farm Lands Protection Act'' regarding protection of surface owners, reclamation, and protection of water supplies.

Surface Owner Protection

In many parts of the country, the owner of some land's surface does not necessarily own the underlying minerals. And in Colorado and other Western States, those mineral estates often belong to the federal government while the surface estates are owned by others, including farmers and ranchers. This split-estate situation can lead to conflicts. The surface-owner provisions are intended to address this issue by establishing a system for development of federal oil and gas in split-estate situations. It requires the Interior Department to give surface owners advance notice of lease sales that would affect their lands and to notify them of subsequent events related to proposed or ongoing developments related to such leases. In addition, it requires that anyone proposing to drill for federal minerals in a split-estate situation must first try to reach an agreement with the surface owner that spells out what will be done to minimize interference with the surface owner's use and enjoyment and to provide for reclamation of affected lands and compensation for any damages. It is important to note that a surface owner ultimately could not block development of oil or gas underlying his or her lands. While I support development of energy resources where appropriate, I also believe that this must be done responsibly and in a way that demonstrates respect for private property rights. That is what this part of the bill is designed to accomplish.

Reclamation Requirements and Water Protection

Another part of the bill addresses reclamation of affected lands. It would amend the Mineral Leasing Act by adding an explicit requirement that parties that produced oil or gas (including coal-bed methane) under a federal lease must restore the affected land so it will be able to support the uses it could support before the energy development. Toward that end, this part of the bill requires development of reclamation plans and posting of reclamation bonds. The bill also requires oil and gas operators to give the protection of water a priority by requiring them to submit a plan for water management when they file for a permit to drill. It also provides that oil or gas operators who damage a water resource--by contaminating it, reducing it, or interrupting it--must remedy the damage or provide replacement water to the water users. And it specifies that water produced under a mineral lease must be dealt with in ways that comply with all federal and state requirements and includes language making clear it will not affect state water laws.

Water is a precious commodity in the arid, drought-ridden West--as important as our energy resources. We must not sacrifice our water in our zeal to develop oil and gas resources. This bill will help ensure it will be protected and reclaimed as we produce domestic energy supplies.

Oil Shale

The bill also includes provisions I helped develop regarding future commercial-scale development of oil shale. They are intended to make it more likely that any commercial development of oil shale occurs in an orderly way that takes full advantage of the important research and development work now underway.

Under these provisions, the BLM would not be faced with an unrealistic deadline for finishing the programmatic environmental impact statement that is now being prepared, but they would still have to go ahead and finish it. Then, the BLM will have a year--not just 6 months, as under current law--to prepare commercial leasing regulations. And, instead of final regulations, these will be proposed regulations, with at least 120 days for people in Colorado--and everyone else--to review and comment on them. The new bill also calls for developing an overall strategy for sustainable and publicly acceptable large-scale development of oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and it retains the current law's requirement for consultations with the Governors of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming before any commercial leases are issued.

I believe the environmental analysis being done by BLM will help everyone understand what will be involved in any commercial leasing program, even though it cannot and will not answer all the questions. But I believe that the timing of any oil shale development under the provisions of this bill will be a better way to proceed and more likely to yield a good result, as will the part of the bill that makes it clear that full environmental review will be required prior to issuing any specific commercial lease, which will remove doubts and lay the right foundation for future decisions.

Oil Shale Fund

In addition, the bill includes (in a separate part) the provision that I added in the Natural Resources Committee to establish a fund to help local governments pay for infrastructure and services made necessary by future commercial oil shale development. This provision reflects my concern about what large-scale commercial development of oil shale can mean for Colorado's Western Slope and the problems it could bring to that mostly rural part of our state. Coloradans remember the seriously disruptive economic impacts on our communities from previous oil shale development efforts. I think the federal government--if it is going to promote development of this resource again--should also learn from that experience and help mitigate any potential impacts from an oil shale program. That's what this provision is designed to accomplish.

Roan Plateau Provisions

Finally, I must mention the section dealing with the Roan Plateau planning area, in Colorado, which Representative John Salazar and I worked to have included. The Roan Plateau is not just another place. Nearly a century ago, it was set aside because President Wilson thought someday we would need its oil shale to fuel the Navy's ships. Of course, that didn't happen--and the area was mostly untouched until 1997, when Congress transferred it from the Energy Department to the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management, or BLM. Since then, the BLM has leased 12,000 acres for oil and gas drilling and has worked on developing a plan for the rest. The bill would not affect any of the lands that have already been leased. And it would not even affect all of the lands that are still untouched. Instead, it would affect only the Federal lands on the top of the plateau--the highest and most sensitive part of the area.

It deals only with the lands on the top of the Roan Plateau itself. That's where you find the stands of aspen and spruce trees and the headwaters of streams that support five rare, pure populations of our native cutthroat trout, in stretches above and below two of Colorado's highest waterfalls. And those lands on top are the prime places for wildlife, including herds of deer and elk. That's why they are so important to hunters and anglers--not just from the Western Slope but many visitors as well--who every year generate millions of dollars for the local economy. And that's why protecting them is supported by sportsmen and sportswomen--for example, the Colorado Chapter of the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers--and such groups as Trout Unlimited as well as by many other people across Colorado--from Battlement Mesa and Basalt to Silt, Salida, and Saguache--who want to slow BLM's rush to lease every last inch of the Roan Plateau.

Neither Rep. Salazar nor I am against energy development. But we are for balance. There is an energy boom in Colorado, with the administration pushing BLM to lease as much and as fast as possible, although thousands of acres already under lease remain undeveloped. As we develop the energy we need, we should remember that places like the Roan Plateau are important not just for their riches of oil and natural gas but also for riches in the form of streams, trees and other plants, and the fish and wildlife populations that depend on them for habitat. We need to assure that the energy ``boom'' does not mean a ``bust'' for those values--for from that bust there may be no recovery. That is the rationale for the Roan Plateau section of this bill. It does two things. First, it requires that each lease of federal land on the top of the Roan Plateau have a ``no surface occupancy'' stipulation. That means the oil, gas, or other minerals must be accessed from another location through directional drilling--for example, from non-federal lands or lands elsewhere in the Roan Plateau planning area.

Second, this part of the bill requires the Treasury Department to report how much has been collected in royalties from already-leased lands in the Roan Plateau planning area, and requires the Interior Department to tell us how much work remains to be done to clean up contaminated areas so as to recoup the funds the federal government spent for infrastructure in the lands before they were transferred to the Interior Department. To understand the reason for requiring these reports, remember the terms under which the lands were transferred from the Department of Energy. To pay for needed cleanup work and to recover infrastructure costs, the transfer legislation says the normal sharing of mineral royalties with the relevant State will not start until it is certified to Congress that the federal government has received enough to cover (1) The cost of all needed environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities, (2) the costs incurred to install wells, gathering lines, and related equipment and (3) any other costs incurred by the United States on the lands. The required reports will provide Congress with an update of the amount of royalties that have been collected and how much work remains to be done. With that information, we will have a better idea of whether the time has come to revisit the transfer act with an eye to allowing the State of Colorado to start receiving part of the royalties from mineral leases in the area.

Madam Speaker, I have been working for several years to achieve passage of the surface-owner, reclamation, and water-protection provisions of this bill. And Representative Salazar and I have worked to protect the most sensitive part of the Roan Plateau. These provisions help provide for balance in energy development in Colorado and across the West and were developed through listening to the concerns of landowners, water users and communities. I strongly urge their approval--along with the rest of this excellent legislation--by the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, title VII of the pending legislation is the Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007, which was produced by our Committee on Natural Resources. The fundamental premise behind this title of H.R. 3221 is that we must restore accountability and integrity in the Federal onshore and offshore energy leasing programs and ensure that the public interest is upheld when it comes to managing energy development on Federal lands, while advancing alternative energy strategies, preserving coal's role in a global climate-sensitive world, and addressing the impacts on wildlife, coastal areas, and our oceans as a result of climate change.

There are many issues contained in this title, but at this time I would highlight subtitle D. That would initiate a framework for enabling our Nation to sequester carbon dioxide under the ground to ensure the future use of fuel, such as coal, in an environmentally responsible fashion.

We can talk about ethanol and other biofuels and wind and solar, et cetera, all we want, but the fact of the matter is that coal, which produces half of our electricity in this country, will continue to be a mainstay through the foreseeable future. At the same time, any of us representing coalfields in this country recognize that we must, as a Nation, aggressively pursue strategies and technologies to capture and store the carbon dioxide.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, title VII of the pending legislation is the ``Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007'' which was produced by the Committee on Natural Resources.

It is the product of 14 hearings held this year, input from over 100 witnesses, results from several Government Accountability Office reports and Interior Department Inspector General investigations, and a marathon markup session during which 46 amendments were considered.

The fundamental premise behind this title of H.R. 3221 is that we must restore accountability and integrity in the Federal onshore and offshore energy leasing programs and ensure that the public interest is upheld when it comes to managing energy development on federal lands, while advancing alternative energy strategies, preserving coal's role in a global-climate-sensitive world, and addressing impacts on wildlife, coastal areas and our oceans as a result of climate change.

I would like, at this time, to express my deep appreciation to the Members of the Natural Resources Committee who assisted in crafting this legislation. To Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Chairman Jim Costa for the many long hours he put into the hearing process. To Raul Grijalva, Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands who also conducted hearings and aggressively fought for public interest provisions in this legislation. To Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo for her vision in seeking to address issues relating to wildlife and our oceans in this measure. And to Grace Napolitano, chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Water and Power for her contributions as they relate to western water resources as well.

Last, but certainly not least, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for her intimate involvement with the provisions reported by the Natural Resources Committee during the process of compiling H.R. 3221.

Others will speak to the many issues contained in this title, but at this time, I will focus on two.

Subtitle D of this title will initiate a framework for enabling our Nation to sequester carbon dioxide under the ground to ensure the future use of fuels, such as coal, in an environmentally responsible fashion.

We can talk about ethanol and other biofuels, and wind, and solar all we want, but the fact of the matter is that coal--which produces half of our electricity in this country--will continue to be a mainstay throughout the foreseeable future. At the same time, many of us representing the coalfields of this country recognize that we must--as a Nation--aggressively pursue strategies and technologies to capture and store the carbon dioxide that results from coal combustion.

There are three provisions of this title which seek to accomplish that goal. The first is a national assessment of the geologic capacity for carbon storage, focusing on deep saline formations, unmineable coal seams, or oil and gas reservoirs capable of accommodating industrial carbon dioxide.

The second directs the Interior Department to devise a regulatory framework for conducting geological carbon sequestration activities on federal lands. This is extremely important. In the event a suitable geologic formation is identified on federal lands, there currently exists no clear-cut authority to allow the activity to go forward.

The third is the biomass utilization program established by this title. One of the purposes of this program is to develop biomass utilization for energy, including through combustion with other fuels such as coal, to achieve cleaner emissions. This is especially important in our continued efforts to develop a viable coal-to-liquids industry in this country to counter imported oil. Expert studies and tests show that when coal is mixed with biomass in the coal-to-liquids production process it will produce a cleaner fuel at the tailpipe than conventional gasoline.

The other area of this title which I would like to highlight relates to restoring the public interest in the management of our Federal oil and gas resources. A number of GAO and Interior Inspector General investigations make it abundantly clear that the taxpayers are not receiving a fair return for the disposition of these resources as a result of royalty underpayments, various schemes and outright fraud.

The Natural Resources Committee, under my chairmanship, has been very aggressive in pursuing these matters. There is a fiduciary responsibility to the American people involved here, and if the Interior Department will not fully exercise it then the Congress will.

Provisions of this title will bolster federal audits and provide expanded tools for requiring compliance with the payment of federal oil and gas royalties.

This is simply good government, and it belongs in this energy bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time for the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Chairman, to follow on my previous comments and to respond to many of the comments made on the minority side, there are those on the majority side representing coal fields of this country that recognize that we must as a Nation aggressively pursue strategies and technologies to capture and store the carbon dioxide that results from coal combustion.

There are three provisions in the natural resources title which seek to accomplish that goal. The first is a national assessment of the geological capacity for carbon storage, focusing on deep saline formations, unmineable coal seams or oil and gas reservoirs capable of accommodating industrial carbon dioxide.

The second initiative directs the Interior Department to devise a regulatory framework for conducting geological carbon sequestration activities on Federal lands. This is extremely important considering future actions this Congress may take in this area. In the event a suitable geological formation is identified on Federal lands, there currently exists no clear-cut authority to allow that activity to go forward.

The third is the biomass utilization program established by this title. One of the purposes of this program is to develop biomass utilization for energy, including through combustion with other fuels such as coal, to achieve cleaner emissions. This is especially important in our continued efforts to develop a viable coal-to-liquids industry in this country to counter imported oil. Expert studies and tests show that when coal is mixed with biomass in the coal-to-liquid production process it will produce a cleaner fuel at the tailpipe than conventional gasoline.

In conclusion, on our title VII of the Natural Resources part of this bill, I would like to highlight provisions which aim to restore the public interest in the management of our Federal oil and gas reserves.

A number of GAO and Interior Inspector General investigations made it abundantly clear to our committee that the taxpayers are not receiving a fair return for the disposition of their resources as a result of royalty underpayments, various schemes and outright fraud.

The Natural Resources Committee has been very aggressive in pursuing these matters. There is a fiduciary responsibility to the American people involved here, and if the Interior Department will not fully exercise it under this administration, then those of us in Congress on our committee will.

Provisions of this title will bolster Federal audits and provide expanded tools for requiring compliance with the payment of Federal oil and gas royalties. This is simply good government.

Our portion of this bill provides for transparency, accountability, and a fair return to the true owners of these Federal lands, the American taxpayer. No longer can we allow the American taxpayer to be ripped off, to not receive their fair share for the disposition of their resources. No longer can we allow cronyism, fraud and abuse to exist in the Department of the Interior.

I conclude by saying that the Natural Resources portion of this bill is a good bill. The underlying bill is a good bill. I salute our Speaker, a true leader, who has addressed the concerns of many members of our caucus, who has an intimate grasp of the details of this legislation. Under Speaker Pelosi's leadership, we are advancing in this particular legislation energy independence for this country, a freeing of our reliance upon foreign, unstable sources of oil that imperil not only our national security but imperil the lives of our young men and women.

This bill helps restore that integrity and that independence. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this legislation, which will do nothing to make us energy independent. This bill sets us on a dangerous path and ensures that we cannot produce sufficient domestic energy.

I believe we should find solutions to address our energy needs. Unfortunately, this legislation will result in less domestic energy production. This bill increases America's dependence on foreign oil, a dangerous policy for our national and economic security. This is a tax and spend and mandate policy by the Democrats, imposing $15 billion in tax increases and myriad new government mandates.

They will say these taxes and mandates won't affect average Americans, only oil companies in other businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. These taxes will impede domestic oil and gas production, discourage investment in refinery capacity, and make it more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in America than their foreign competitors, making the price at the pump rise even higher. An increased tax doesn't just hurt energy companies, it hurts every American energy consumer.

This legislation does not even address some of our most promising domestic alternative and renewable energy supplies. There is nothing in this bill that addresses clean coal-to-liquid technologies or nuclear energy. Coal is one of our Nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of clean coal technologies is completely ignored.

Furthermore, this legislation doesn't encourage the construction of nuclear energy generation facilities. As the Congress works to promote green energy, we should encourage the production of more nuclear sites which provide energy without CO2 emissions.

In one of the few programs that could lead to increased energy production, I am baffled that it contains Davis-Bacon labor provisions. Renewable energy plans financed through loan guarantees would be located in rural America, but artificially inflated construction costs caused by Davis-Bacon will negate the program in most rural areas.

This legislation does not address the energy concerns of our country. It makes the situation worse. If we want to make America energy independent, this Congress must pass a bill that contains energy. This bill does not.

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and work to find real solutions to the energy needs facing our country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this reckless energy policy, which will do absolutely nothing to make us energy independent, or lower energy costs. This bill sets us on a dangerous path and ties our hands in a regulatory mess to ensure that we cannot produce domestic energy.

Like my colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the growing demand for energy. Unfortunately, this legislation contains no energy in it. In the Republican-led Congress, I supported an Energy Bill that actually encouraged energy--domestic energy production--and lessened our dependence on foreign oil. Today's legislation, however, seeks to dismantle any progress we have made in achieving energy independence, and leaves us at the mercy of foreign energy sources.

Many Members have discussed passionately how America needs to decrease its dependence on foreign energy. In fact, many campaigned on promises to decrease our dependence. Sadly, this legislation falls drastically short on those promises. In fact it actually increases America's dependence on foreign oil. This is a dangerous policy for our national and economic security.

Many Americans don't know that the U.S. is the world's largest energy producer. Over the past 25 years we have pumped 67 billion barrels of oil, and strong reserves remain. The fact is the energy sources are there--in Alaska, the Rockies, and offshore--but political roadblocks keep it in the ground instead of in use in the economy. Sadly, this legislation restricts our access to our own energy sources even further.

This energy policy set in place by the Democrat majority lives the Democrat motto through and through--Tax and Spend. This policy imposes $15 billion in tax increases. The other side will tell you that these tax increases will not affect the average hardworking Americans, only the big evil oil companies. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The taxes contained in this bill will impede new domestic oil and gas production, will discourage investment in new refinery capacity, and will make it more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in the U.S. than their foreign competitors, making the price at the pump rise even higher.

Let's make no mistake, an increased tax doesn't just hurt energy companies, it hurts every American--individual, farm, or company--that consumes energy. Increased taxes on energy companies are passed to consumers. Every American will see these increased costs on their energy bill. This body shouldn't pass legislation that further raises energy prices for consumers.

While this legislation increases taxes on traditional oil and gas, it does not even address some of our most promising domestic alternative and renewable energy supplies. There is not one thing in this bill that addressees clean Coal-to-Liquid technologies or nuclear energy. Coal is one of our Nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of Coal-to-Liquid technologies is completely ignored by this bill. Furthermore, this legislation does nothing to encourage the construction of new nuclear facilities.

Proponents of this legislation will tout how green this bill is; however, if my colleagues really want to promote green energy they should encourage the production of more nuclear sites which provide energy free of CO2 emissions. The rest of the world is far outpacing the U.S. in its commitment to clean nuclear energy. We generate only 20 percent of our energy from this clean energy, when other countries can generate about 80 percent of their electricity needs through nuclear. It is a travesty that in over 700 pages this legislation does not once mention or encourage the construction of clean and reliable nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is the most reliable and advanced of any renewable energy technology, and if we are serious about encouraging CO2 free energy use, we must support nuclear energy.

One of the provisions I am most alarmed about in this bill allows for individuals to sue the Federal Government for $1.5 million for damages caused by global warming. I don't know what this has to do with energy production, but I think this is a dangerous precedent to set. This language gambles with the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people that could get lost in frivolous litigation.

I'm also concerned with the potential sweeping implications of the bill's National Policy on Wildlife and Global Warming. It is nearly impossible to accurately determine the effects that warming temperatures might have on wildlife, let alone take measures to mitigate these effects. The consequences of this section could be as far reaching as the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act and could have severe implications for Federal land management. This does not belong in a so-called energy bill.

I will concede that there are a few, very few, decent provisions in this bill. I am pleased that the Agriculture Energy programs build on the 2002 Farm Bill with more focus on cellulosic materials, including forest biomass and switchgrass. This will help farmers and forest owners by creating new markets and income opportunities to keep them on the land. At the same time, greater focus on cellulosic feedstocks can reduce our reliance on corn for renewable fuels.

With Americans paying close to $3 at the pump, we must diversify our energy supplies with alternative fuels, including renewable energy from our farms and forests. Renewable energy is a home-grown solution for reducing our reliance on foreign-oil, boosting jobs and economies in rural America, and improving our environment.

However, I am baffled that one of the few programs in this bill that would lead to increased energy production would contain Davis-Bacon provisions. Renewable energy plants financed through the loan guarantee program would be located in Rural America. Rural America simply cannot afford to pay the artificially inflated wages caused by Davis-Bacon as urban America can. By including this unfair labor provision we are putting union interests ahead of efforts to become more energy independent.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to the lack of real incentives for energy production in the U.S., this bill is also bad for our Nation's public forests. The bill guts a program that provides incentives for renewable energy production from small-diameter materials removed from public forests to reduce wildfire and insect risk and improve the health of the forests. With over 5 million acres destroyed by fires and hundreds of millions of dollars spent fighting them so far this year, we cannot afford to take away forest management tools from the Nation's public land managers.

Unfortunately, the bill replaces this program with a Biomass Pilot Program, which would do everything but encourage use of low value forest material for energy. On top of this, the bill attaches the problematic Davis-Bacon provisions to this pilot program.

This legislation does nothing to address the energy concerns of our country; it only makes the situation worse. This bill is a dangerous policy for our country. If we really want to

make our country energy independent, this Congress must pass an energy bill that contains energy. This bill does not. I urge my colleagues to reject this awful bill; let's start over, and work to find real solutions to the energy needs facing our country.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and yield myself such time as I may consume.

The European community nations have achieved a remarkable milestone. They have achieved a 10 percent mode shift from automobiles to transit. The State of New Jersey has also achieved a mode shift to 10 percent of all travel by transit. If we can make that mode shift nationwide in the U.S., we will save the equivalent of all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. That's 550 million barrels a year.

The recommendations from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure incorporated in this bill will move us in that direction.

We authorize $1.7 billion of capital operating funds for transit agencies to reduce fares and expand services, to purchase alternative fuel buses, alternative fuel locomotives, ferries, and refueling facilities.

If the alternative transit program had been continued with vigor, there was a very successful hydrogen bus initiative that produced vehicles that operated in Santa Barbara, California, that I had the privilege of going out there to ride in those buses. We can achieve those goals without a Manhattan Project or without a man on the moon project because we have the technology already in hand.

Our legislation also increases the Federal share for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds to increase incentives for States to use those funds. We authorize funding for the purchase of green locomotives and track improvements for short-line railroads.

The private line, private sector rail companies have had great success with their green goat switch engines in makeup yards for freight rails, producing vastly less particulates and CO2 and NOX in those areas which are very close to habited communities that feel mostly the effect of the noise and the air pollution, vast reductions in already existing technology with no loss in efficiency but also savings of cost.

We also authorize $2 billion in loan guarantees to establish a short sea shipping transportation program which would be very beneficial on the Great Lakes, would help reduce the congestion in Chicago, and would improve the coastwise trade on the east, west and gulf coast regions of the United States.

We also require GSA, General Services Administration, to install energy-efficient light bulbs in Federal buildings, including to photovoltaic systems. We require the Department of Energy to construct a sun wall on its headquarters. Actually, that building was constructed, the south wall, with no windows or doors to accommodate solar application. We reported that bill early in the work of our committee with the support of our ranking member, Mr. Mica, and enthusiastic bipartisan vote in the committee to use money out of the public building fund to build that wall so that at the end of the day the Department of Energy will pump excess electricity into the Pepco grid system and run all of the elevators, escalators, computers, lights, anything that runs on electricity by photovoltaics. We already have technology. We need to do that. Our provisions in this bill will, using what already exists to save energy, reduce costs.

And I just add one further item, and that is on the General Services Administration, our committee has jurisdiction over 366 million of square feet of Federal office space. The electricity bill annually is $5.8 billion. If we install photovoltaic cells on all those buildings, we can save 90 percent of that cost and save also the consumption of coal and natural gas, whatever it takes to produce the electricity for those buildings.

These are all realistic, within grasp, available technology initiatives that we bring to you in a very practical way.

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

Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to my good friend from Florida about our committee markup on this legislation, and I do think that a correction to the record is in order.

The Drake amendment would have amended the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program to allow construction of new single- occupancy vehicle lanes. That hardly contributes to energy conservation. CMAQ is intended for high-occupancy vehicle lanes. Ninety-eight percent of the STP and NHS programs can be used for single-occupancy vehicle lanes. CMAQ, since ISTEA in 1991, has been an energy conservation and air quality improvement program. That amendment would have set us back rather than moved us forward.

The L&G provision the gentleman referenced, the amendment was directed at a provision in the existing safety law legislation in the State of Massachusetts, one which the entire Massachusetts delegation supported in 2005, and the existing law and this provision would have overturned or significantly amended that language and was vigorously opposed by the entire Massachusetts delegation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The gentleman fully knows the issue at hand in Massachusetts. The entire Massachusetts delegation knows their State better than we here in this body.

As for the capacity issue, that amendment was never offered.

Our bill does keep the lights on, but with photovoltaic, energy efficient lighting, compact fluorescents. To reduce the cost, save the use of coal so that it can be directed to more important industrial purposes like producing steel, we do have an energy conservation and energy-creating program that we bring to the floor in our portion of this legislation.

I was actually out this morning myself helping the energy issue, consuming 900 calories on the seat of a bicycle, rather than consuming a gallon of gasoline in my car.

In fact, if we all did that, we could save that eight barrels of oil a year, consume 86,000 calories on the seat of a bicycle and convert from a hydrocarbon economy to the carbohydrating economy.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Mr. Hoyer. In particular, this Manager's package includes two provisions submitted as an amendment by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: a provision to help maximize the energy efficiency of the Capitol Power Plant, CPP, and a provision to help expand intercity bus service. I thank the Speaker and the gentleman from Maryland for including these important enhancements to the bill.

This amendment requires the Architect of the Capitol to operate the steam boilers and the chiller plant at the Capitol Power Plant in the most efficient manner possible. Adopting these changes will reduce the carbon emissions and energy required to operate the building of the House of Representatives and result in cost savings for the American people.

This provision implements recommendations outlined in the final report on the ``Green the Capitol'' initiative, which was issued and submitted to Congress on June 21, 2007. The recommendations draw on the research conducted by the Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkley Laboratory, LBL, on the operating practices of the CPP. According to this research, operation of the House buildings was responsible for approximately 91,000 tons of Carbon Dioxide-Equivalent Emissions (CO2-e) emissions in fiscal year 2006. This value is equivalent to the annual (CO2-e) emissions of 17,200 cars.

The LBL study determined that the current CPP practices do not take into account operating differences by season. Specifically, the chilled water temperature could be raised in the winter when less cooling is needed and the steam pressure could be lowered in the summer when less heat is needed. The level of steam pressure could be lowered overall because energy needs in the buildings have decreased over time.

The estimated cost of fine-tuning the steam pressure used to supply House office buildings is approximately $10,000 and results in an annual savings of $417,000 per year. The costs of tuning the boilers could be recouped in direct energy savings in just 1 week. The anticipated costs for optimizing the chilled water distribution to the House office buildings is approximately $25,000 and could save about $340,000 annually. The costs of this effort could be recouped in direct energy savings in just 1 month.

The amendment also will require the Architect of the Capitol to ensure the accuracy of the steam and chilled water meters in the House office buildings as part of standard maintenance practice, to maximize energy efficiency.

These are small changes, but they stand to have a big impact on improving the energy efficiency of the Capitol Power Plant, and in turn, reduce the energy consumption required to operate House buildings. This amendment allows the Federal Government to lead by example in the promotion of energy efficiency.

The Manager's package also makes technical corrections to the section of the bill authorizing grants to improve public transportation services. The bill provides that grant funds are to be used either to reduce public transportation fares or to expand public transportation service in both urban and rural areas. However, current law authorizes intercity buses to provide public transportation services between rural areas in order to provide additional, meaningful transit services to those areas. Therefore, in order for the grant funds provided under this bill to be used for eligible purposes under current law, this technical amendment is needed to authorize intercity bus services as an eligible use of grant funds.

I strongly support this amendment and urge its adoption.

I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, today we have an historic opportunity in the House of Representatives. Today we are faced with a momentous decision on energy and global warming. With this bill, we are turning toward the future for the sake of our children and our planet. With this bill, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, Congress can indeed take our Nation in a new direction. This is a moment when we can make a decision in favor of the future.

Mr. Chairman, you acknowledged all of the chairmen and chairwomen who have contributed to the success of this legislation that we are bringing forward today, and I want to commend all of them. I want to say that the principles that have been put into this legislation are very important. Our energy independence is a national security issue. It is an economic issue for our country and for America's families. It is an environmental health issue for our children. And it is a moral issue. This beautiful planet is God's gift to us. We have a moral responsibility to preserve it. That is why I am so pleased that so many in the religious community are supporting our actions today.

This bill makes the largest investment in homegrown biofuels in American history. We know that America's farmers will fuel America's independence. We will send our energy dollars to middle America, not to the Middle East.

The bill promotes cleaner and efficient means of transportation, including alternative fuels in busses and ferries and hybrid automobiles in hauling goods around the country.

I have a very long statement about this bill, I'm very enthusiastic about it, and I will use that enthusiasm to submit most of my statement for the Record.

But I do want to acknowledge the important work that Mr. Dingell did on this legislation because in his bill, renewable energy offers a new direction for our country. And what he does is, 10.4 billion tons of dioxide emissions are reduced. That's more emissions than are used by all of the cars on America's highways today. It's very important. And I want to thank Mr. Rangel, who we will hear from later, on the fact that this bill is paid for.

So it's about our national security. We cannot be dependent on foreign oil. As I said, this is God's creation. This issue is as local as our neighborhoods; it is as global as the planet. It is about how we educate our children in this new green economy. It's how we create jobs. And Congressman Miller and Congresswoman Solis will be talking about that in a moment.

The Prophet Isaiah has said, Mr. Chairman, that ``to minister to the needs of God's creation is an act of worship. To ignore that is to dishonor the God who made us.'' I firmly believe from the bottom of my heart that if we do believe that, that we should pass this legislation today. It's about our children, their future, the world in which they live to fulfill their lives, and it's about America being number one and in the lead.

So I urge my colleagues, I promise to submit it for the Record if you promise to read it.

intro

My colleagues, today we are fced with a momentous decision

on energy and global warming.

Will we turn toward the future, for the sake of our

children and our planet? Or will we remain mired in the

disputes and regional differences that have so often

prevented the Congress from adopting new, innovative

approaches to our energy needs?

With this bill, the ``New Direction for Energy

Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection

Act,'' Congress can indeed take our nation in a New

Direction.

Energy independence is a national security issue, and

environmental and health issue, an economic issue, and a

moral issue.

As it says in the Bible, ``To minister to the needs of

God's creation is an act of worship, to ignore those needs is

to dishonor the God who made us.''

This is the moment when we can make a decision in favor of

the future, while ministering to the needs of God's creation.

acknowledgements

Ten committees have been hard at work for months to develop

this legislation, and I salute the leadership of our

Chairmen. These committees have held extensive hearings and

markups. The Appropriations Committee has also highlighted

sustainable energy and global warming in their bills.

As a result, almost every Member of Congress has had the

opportunity to participate in this process. Thank you all for

your creativity and hard work.

principles

With broad input, and a commitment to the future, Congress

has created this bill with four principles in mind. We must

strengthen our national security by reducing our dependence

on foreign oil; lower energy costs with greater efficiency,

cleaner energy, and smarter technology; create new and good-

paying American jobs, and reduce global warming.

And we must do it all in a fiscally sound way.

To fund these key investments in our future, we have

demanded greater accountability to the taxpayer from oil and

gas companies that drill on Federal lands.

energy independence

This bill makes the largest investment in homegrown

biofuels in American history. We know that America's farmers

will fuel America's energy independence, creating jobs and

prosperity across rural America.

This bill will send our energy dollars to middle America

and coast to coast; not the Middle East.

This bill promotes cleaner and more efficient means of

transportation, including alternative fuel buses and ferries,

and hybrid locomotives for hauling goods around the country.

protecting consumers

With the energy efficiency provisions in this legislation,

we will lower costs for American consumers and businesses in

key areas, such as electricity, home heating, and cooling--

saving Americans more than $300 billion dollars.

With these energy efficiency measures, we will also reduce

carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 10.4 billion tons

through 2030, more than the annual emissions of all the cars

on the road in America today.

This bill is essential to developing renewable energy

sources in America. It makes a strong commitment to research

and innovation. It extends tax provisions that have provided

a strong foundation for our renewable energy industries,

provides new incentives, and bolsters research.

Renewable energy offers a new direction for our country by

improving energy independence and reducing global warming.

jobs

As we address energy independence and global warming with

innovation and market-based solutions, we will grow our

economy and create good paying jobs--including ``green-

collar'' jobs.

Because small businesses are the backbone of our economy,

this bill ensures small businesses can reap the economic

benefits of new energy technologies.

global warming

The consequences of global warming will be as local as our

neighborhoods, and as broad as our entire planet. So too must

our solutions be both local and global.

This bill lays out specific steps the Administration should

take for the U.S. to resume a constructive role as the global

leader in combating global warming.

Here at home, the Federal Government should lead by

example. This bill requires the Federal Government to become

carbon-neutral by the year 2050, and lays out a number of

specific measures that will assist our government to achieve

that goal.

States and local communities need to know how to plan for

the global warming that is already underway. This bill

reorganizes the federal climate change research, so every

locality has information it needs to prepare.

It also assists us in tracking the effects of global

warming on the oceans and wildlife so we can take steps to

protect them.

conclusion

Mr. Chairman, the legislation we debate today is just the

ambitious first phase in what will be a series of

revolutionary actions for energy independence.

But it is a very serious first step, that honors God's

creation--our planet, and creates a better world for our

children.

With confidence in American ingenuity and faith in our

future, today we can declare a New Direction in our energy

policy--one for our future generations. I urge my colleagues

to do just that by supporting this bill.