To authorize the designation of National Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, the nuclear weapons production program at Hanford played a critical role in our nation's defense for decades--securing victories in World War II and the Cold War. Today, the 586-square-mile Hanford Site, which is located in the congressional district that I represent and in the community that I've called home for over 50 years, is undergoing the largest and most complex nuclear waste cleanup effort in the world.

While nuclear cleanup will continue at Hanford for decades, the local community is already looking towards life post-cleanup and is actively engaged in discussing its future and economy once this massive undertaking is completed. Clearly, the possible beneficial use of portions of land on this massive site to diversify the economy and ensure a robust post-cleanup future are options that must be open and available. As just one possible example, consideration is being given by the Department of Energy and local communities to proposals to use a piece of Hanford lands for an Energy Park. Other ideas on how to use these suitable lands include nuclear activities such as medical isotope production and uranium enrichment for fuel rod production that would power nuclear energy reactors.

At a time when decisions about future uses of lands on the Hanford Site have yet to be made, it is critical that this Congress and the federal government maintain flexibility in order to keep all options on the table--and not enact legislation that could complicate or prohibit future activities, thereby preempting the very conversations that are underway today.

Mr. Speaker, as originally introduced, H.R. 2729 would have designated the Hanford Site and surrounding lands as a permanent protected National Environmental Research Park, or NERP.

While I believe it appropriate for portions of the Hanford Site to conduct activities consistent with the NERP mission, I have very serious concerns about rushing through permanent decisions on Hanford lands via legislation that was introduced last month with zero input from either the Tri-Cities community or their elected Representative.

That's why I have been working with the Science Committee on trying to identify and agree on ways to modify and improve the bill to fully protect the unique and complex Hanford site. My overriding goal in pursuing modifications was to avoid serious unintended consequences that could very well result from H.R. 2729, including the creation of yet another overlapping land use management authority at Hanford and the permanent lockdown of future land use decisions.

I have made several suggestions to the Committee including language to: (1) enable the Secretary of Energy to modify the boundaries of the NERP, (2) exclude privately-owned lands and state lands, (3) ensure that nothing in the bill will restrict, limit or condition the ability of the Department to lease, convey or transfer lands, (4) ensure that no new land use or regulatory authority is created, (5) clearly state that this new law could not be used to launch lawsuits, and (6) to make certain that the NERP authorization is aimed at the intent of facilitating long-term research and promoting education outreach, rather than the establishment of a restrictive land use designation that could block or stifle future decisions. I support the stated intent of this legislation's authors and proponents to encourage research and education, but I fear that the language of the bill as written could be interpreted to cause real harm to the future of Hanford and the local community.

I very much appreciate the consideration of Ranking Member Hall, and the willingness of Chairman Gordon, Subcommittee Chairman Baird and Representative Lujan to listen and discuss my concerns over the past week. In the end, clarifying language that I felt was necessary to protect the interests of those I was elected to represent was not agreeable to the Committee, and they instead chose to remove Hanford from the bill altogether.

While I believe we all would have preferred an outcome that was acceptable to all Members, which did not prove possible in the past week, and the removal of Hanford from the bill is an appropriate course of action.

It took many years for the federal government to produce the massive volumes of nuclear waste at Hanford, and it will take many more years to complete the cleanup of these wastes. There is absolutely no reason to rush through legislation that could make cleanup at Hanford more difficult or take away the flexibility to make decisions on the future of the Site and the surrounding communities.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, December 8, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills:

H.R. 957, Green Energy Education Act of 2009;

H.R. 2729, To authorize the designation of National Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy, and for other purposes;

H.R. 3165, Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 2009;

H.R. 3246, Advanced Vehicle Technology Act of 2009; H.R. 3585, Solar Technology Roadmap Act;

S. 737, A bill to amend the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to authorize the Secretary of Energy to conduct research, development, and demonstration to make biofuels more compatible with small non-road engines, and for other purposes;

S. 1617, To require the Secretary of Commerce to establish a program for the award of grants to States to establish revolving loan funds for small and medium-sized manufacturers to improve energy efficiency and produce clean energy technology, and for other purposes;

S. 2744, A bill to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to expand the authority for awarding technology prizes by the Secretary of Energy to include a financial award for separation of carbon dioxide from dilute sources; and

S. 2773, A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program to support the research, demonstration, and development of commercial applications for offshore wind energy, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Rosemarie Calabro@energy.senate.gov.

For further information, please contact Jonathan Epstein or Rosemarie Calabro.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill

(H.R. 2729) to authorize the designation of National Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2729, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that today the House will consider H.R. 2729, a bill that will formally authorize the National Environmental Research Parks at Department of Energy sites across the country, including one in my district at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Los Alamos National Laboratory includes a landscape of canyons, mesas and mountains, and the Rio Grande, providing a diverse range of ecosystems to explore.

The Los Alamos Park conducts ongoing environmental studies on everything from containment transport to woodland productivity to long- term climate change effects on the land. These parks have been a critical resource to the national and the global environmental research community for decades, yet they have never had a clearly defined source of support in the department before. This bill finally addresses this issue and provides important guidance for research, development, education and outreach on the parks.

H.R. 2729 was developed through a collaborative process that took into account comments and concerns from each of the DOE sites, as well as helpful input and amendments from both minority and majority Members. I'm happy to present a bill with bipartisan cosponsorship, and I look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to send this to the President's desk as soon as possible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 2729 to authorize the designation of National Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy, and for other purposes.

H.R. 2729, introduced by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), authorizes six existing parks that are located within major eco-regions of the United States. These eco-regions cover more than half of the Nation. In some cases the research parks are the only ecological sanctuaries in the entire region. The parks provide secure settings for scientists to conduct research on a broad range of subjects, such as plant succession, biomass production, environmental behavior of radionuclides, cost and effectiveness of revegetation of disturbed lands, and thermal effects on freshwater ecosystems. The parks also provide rich environments for training researchers and introducing the public to ecological sciences.

The parks have been around in concept since 1969 and in reality, actually, since 1972, when the Atomic Energy Commission, the predecessor to the Department of Energy, established its first research park at the Savannah River site in South Carolina.

Under this bill, the Parks will continue to serve their intended purpose, but will now be able to do so under their own authorization.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Lujan for his work on this bill, and also the work of his staff.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, I missed nine votes. Had I been present I would have voted.

Rollcall No. 596, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.Con.Res. 164, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 597, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 2729, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 598, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 1622, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 599, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to, as Amended, H.Res. 507, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 600, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.Res. 270, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 601, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to S.Con.Res. 30, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 602, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.Con.Res. 123, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 603, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1933, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall No. 604, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 2632, I would have voted ``yea.''