To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2938, a bill that extends the timeline to bring this hydroelectric power plant project in Illinois on line. It gives them another up to 6 years, and ultimately, this would be the decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. But as they're going through the process right now of permitting and approval, this provides them an additional 6 years to make sure that the project has enough time to get approved and completed and bring this new power source on line.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to a cosponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

I'm prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I again rise in support of the legislation dealing with hydroelectric power. I think it is important, as we are talking about energy, that we really talk about the need to get a comprehensive national energy policy in our country. It is not just enough to promote hydroelectric power. It is not just enough to look at any one significant source of power. We need to look at all of the resources in our land. In fact, the inscription by Daniel Webster right above the Speaker's rostrum talks about the need to explore the resources of our land. Unfortunately, there are many Federal laws and barriers in place that prevent us from doing just that. This cap-and- trade national energy tax imposes even more barriers. In addition to imposing significant taxes on to the backs of American people in the form of higher utility rates and bureaucratic regulations, it will run millions of jobs out of this country.

That's not the right approach. What we need is a comprehensive energy policy. I'm proud to be a cosponsor, with many other of my colleagues, of the American Energy Act, a bill that we filed earlier this year to take that comprehensive approach to a national energy policy, one that looks at all of the alternatives. We explore more technologies for wind, for solar, for hydroelectric and for nuclear power. We use our natural resources, like oil and natural gas, to get to that bridge to fund those other alternatives. We use the things that we have here today to get us to those technologies that aren't yet readily available to power our homes or to run our cars. But hopefully one day, through the use of these technologies, we will advance the utilization of the natural resources we have in our country to create jobs.

Our bill would actually create jobs and generate billions of dollars to the Federal Government, not by raising taxes, but by actually creating more economic opportunities by creating jobs and getting people back to work so that they can contribute and pay into and pay down this debt as opposed to raising the debt and running off jobs.

So I would hope that we would support and get to a place where we can actually get agreement in a bipartisan way to pass a bipartisan bill like the American Energy Act that actually takes a comprehensive approach to solving our national energy needs and reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil--rather than this tax approach, this cap-and-trade energy tax that actually would make countries in Europe, the Middle East and China more powerful and put America further at risk--so we can get our strengthened energy policy and we can get energy independence. But we need to have a bipartisan approach, not this cap-and-trade energy tax that literally would run millions of jobs out of our country.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of this legislation. I think it's a good bill because I think hydroelectric power is a good thing for our country, and when we're concerned about getting renewable energy online, there's probably nothing better than hydropower for that.

Unfortunately, in the cap-and-tax bill that was passed by this House over my objection and over the objection of the gentleman from Illinois, there is a provision on page 19, line 12, sub 3, that says, The hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that the water surface elevation at any given location and time that would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is maintained.

Now, I share this language with you because the gentleman from Illinois, my friend, talked about the 404,000 watts or megawatts, whatever it is--I didn't jot down the exact amount--would be produced as hydroelectric power and, therefore, renewable energy and create new jobs. My concern is this: that hydropower is being added after this legislation is moving forward.

Should the cap-and-tax bill become law, that hydropower, according to this language, would not be considered as renewable energy for purposes of Illinois meeting the new Federal standard on renewable energy. Because in consultation with two civil engineers I've spoken with who operate hydro projects--many of them and large-scale hydro projects-- when I shared this language with them about maintaining the surface elevation at any location in time, they laughed. They said you can't operate a hydro system and not affect the water behind the dam in some way at some point.

And so to disqualify the new hydro--like the gentleman from Illinois is trying to get here--makes no sense to me. Either hydropower is renewable or it's not.

Now, there is another provision in this bill, the cap-and-tax bill, that said hydro that came online after 1988 is renewable but hydro before 1988 is not. Now, you have got water flowing down a river. You've got multiple dams along the way with hydro generation facilities. It's the same water. It just depends on what year the dam was built whether or not that hydropower is considered renewable or not. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Nor do the provisions in the cap-and-tax bill that said, if woody biomass off a Federal forest comes off of a late successional stand, you can't count the burning of that to produce green energy as renewable energy, but if it came off of a severely damaged tree, it is, although there is no definition for that. And if any woody biomass comes off private, county, State lands, it's all considered renewable energy when it produces electricity when it's burned, but yet there is this restriction on Federal land.

I share that with you because America's Federal forests are terrifically overstocked and subject to catastrophic fire.

We could create more real jobs cleaning up the forest in very depressed communities. I was just out in four counties in my district. I think two, maybe three, are now at over 20 percent unemployment. They have 70, 50 and 80 percent Federal land. This is the great forests of our country that are left to burn up. The woody biomass could be put into clean energy. There are firms willing to invest if they could get supply. Again, the cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax bill harms that effort.

So I share the gentleman's support of this legislation to create and move forward on the hydro project. It's unfortunate if the cap-and-tax bill that passed the House becomes law that hydro will not be considered renewal. That doesn't make sense. And I hope that the Senate can correct this problem.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise really in amazement today to hear our colleagues on the other side talk about hydroelectric power being a renewable energy source, because we have seen multiple venues here in the House where Democrats have denied that.

Mr. Speaker, we have a tremendous need in this country for alternative sources of energy, renewable sources of energy. Nuclear energy is one of those renewable sources of energy, or a source of energy that is one that makes the most sense from an environmental perspective as well as a cost perspective.

We have many members of the opposition on the other side that want to deny us going into a nuclear age. France gets over 80 percent of its electric power from nuclear sources. The United States should do the same thing. In my home State of Georgia, the Georgia Power Company for a long period of time now has been trying to get permitting for two new nuclear reactors at their plant in Vogel just south of my district, just south of Augusta, Georgia. They already have two. They want two more. But, Mr. Speaker, they have had a great deal of difficulty because the regulatory commission and various environmental groups have made it extremely difficult.

They are not alone. All over this country, there are electric power companies that want to put in electric power plants that are nuclear- fueled. Mr. Speaker, they have great difficulty doing so. We need to use our renewable resources, not only for hydroelectric power, but for nuclear power. We need to look to wind and solar. We need to look to biomass. We need to stop this idiocy of a corn-based ethanol source of energy. Mr. Speaker, I'm from Georgia, and I love my cornbread and grits. It makes no sense to me to drive down the road burning up my food. But we've done that. And it has driven up the cost of corn for the chicken producers that produce most of the chicken for the world, all over the world in my district, and in my friend Nathan Deal's district from Gainesville in the Ninth and Tenth Congressional Districts of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, we have an energy policy that is broken. Republicans have presented bill after bill that would solve the energy crisis. The American Energy Act is one. It is an all-of-the-above energy plan that would stimulate hydroelectric power. It would stimulate nuclear power. It would look to alternative sources of power.

But our plans are not being heard on the floor of this House. Why is that? Why are the American people's representatives not being heard?

It is because the leadership on the Democratic side wants to stifle debate, wants to shut off any alternative ideas. They call the Republican Party the ``Party of No,'' but the Democratic Party has been the Party of No, whereas the Republican Party is the Party of k-n-o-w Know because we know how to solve the energy crisis. We know how to solve the health care financing crisis. We know how to solve the economic crisis. But those ideas are not being heard. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the American people to wake up and demand that the Republicans are heard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2938) to extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2938 would allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to extend the construction deadline for a hydroelectric power plant at the Melvin Price Locks and Dam in Alton, Illinois. Over the past 20 years, there has been great interest in building a hydroelectric plant at this site on the Mississippi River; however, construction of the hydroelectric plant has not happened on this site as of this date.

Last October, Brookfield Power acquired the license to proceed with the construction of the site. When Brookfield applied for an extension of the construction deadline, the company was informed that because of the administrative extensions granted to the previous licensee, congressional action is needed to grant an extension.

Brookfield will lose this license at the end of this month, July 2009. For that reason, Brookfield and the City of Alton, Illinois, requested legislation to extend the deadline for 6 years.

Passing this legislation is necessary to ensure that Brookfield can bring renewable energy to Illinois and create green jobs. The hydroelectric project will create 404,000 megawatt hours of electricity, the equivalent of 283 barrels of oil. Further, Brookfield will hire 125 workers over a 3-year period and invest over $400 million to construct the plan.

This bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague from Illinois, Congressman John Shimkus. Both the majority and minority staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee have reviewed and accepted the legislation. FERC has also reviewed the legislation and does not oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2938.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for supporting this legislation. I share the same concern that you have with the section that you quoted in the energy bill, and we hope that our friends in the other body

will address that issue so that it is not a concern for the future.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from Louisiana if he has other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Louisiana and the minority for supporting this legislation. In particular I would like to thank my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Shimkus, not only for his

kind words, but for cosponsoring this legislation.

I urge passage of H.R. 2938, and with that I yield back the balance of my time.

Melvin Price Locks and Dam is named after an historic member of this Chamber, Mel Price, who gave me my nomination to West Point. So it is with great affinity that I just mentioned that. But now that district is ably represented by my friend and colleague, Jerry Costello, and I thank him for including me on this reauthorization bill.

The Republicans have already talked about an all-of-the-above energy strategy which talks about nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric. And no one is really more knowledgeable on the hydroelectric issue than the colleague who preceded me, Greg Walden. There is a concern about if we want these programs, these licenses, to actually become real projects in the whole credit issue, then this has to qualify for renewable, and that will help bring some dollars to help effect this instead of just worrying about relicensing, then we can actually get it built. But if we don't do this process, then we have to go through the whole paperwork procedure.

I'm very happy to be here with my friend who, again, worked hard and diligently for southern Illinois. And this is all part of that all-of- the-above energy strategy that will help us decrease our reliance on imported crude oil. Thank you for letting me join you in this resolution.