Energy Policy Act of 2005
ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Alexander-Warner amendment. Again, this amendment proposes to usurp local control. I find it hard to believe that those who argue States rights at the same time want to impose additional Federal regulations over local, county, and State jurisdictions.
This amendment is simply an assault on the continued development of wind energy. It singles out wind for additional scrutiny. If the sponsors are so concerned about protecting our scenic areas, shouldn't this amendment be applied to all technologies?
Some may say these turbines are unsightly. The Senator from Tennessee may believe they are unattractive. But many others believe them to be visually attractive as they drive down the highway.
I just recently drove through Oklahoma and saw all these wind turbines out on the prairies of Oklahoma, and they look beautiful spinning in the wind with no pollution, providing electricity for our homes, our schools, and our factories. Yet they are unattractive? Come on, give me a break.
This is a pathway to our energy independence. More wind energy--we can put them up in Iowa. If the Senator from Virginia does not want them in Virginia, we will put them in Iowa. We will put them in North Dakota, South Dakota, and we will be glad to ship the electricity we are making from the force of the wind.
I urge my colleagues to turn down this ill-advised amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand there is a parliamentary situation that I have 1 minute, and I guess Senator Alexander has 1 minute on the Alexander-Warner amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I just ask one question. Why single out wind power? I ask my friends from Tennessee and Virginia, why not apply it to coal, coal-fired plants? Why not apply it to oil or gas? Maybe some people don't like seeing a smokestack out there on the horizon. Maybe people don't like to see the cooling towers of nuclear plants. Why not apply it to everything?
It seems to me some people are ready to drill in a wildlife area but not put a windmill within 20 miles. Why not apply it to transmission lines? We see big power transmission lines going across scenic areas, marring the views or vistas. Why not apply it to transmission lines?
Clearly, this amendment is aimed at wind power. I don't know why, but it is. I just say to restrict the development of the largest nonhydro renewable resource takes us in the wrong direction. So I ask my colleagues to please oppose the Alexander-Warner amendment and get on with building the windmills in Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, and all of the places that will give us clean renewable energy.
http://thomas.loc.gov/