Lamar Alexander

The purpose of our legislation is to fix that problem.

I just want to be real careful that any Federal action we take does not discourage, that we actually should be encouraging it.

I would simply like to encourage you to, wherever appropriate, work in partnership with universities in States like the University of Tennessee or the State of Tennessee or other States and universities to maximize our bucks on this.

But it is possible today... to get a bunch of Federal subsidies and build a big wind park right outside the Cherokee National Forest.

The administration's proposal to cut State regulatory grants... is completely unrealistic.

Would it not be wiser to establish zones or areas and say these are appropriate places, rather than just let entrepreneurs who might be attracted by a 3 cent per kilowatt hour Federal subsidy to come in and build a big turbine and then…

It makes no sense for us to spend $40 million buying the Cherokee National Forest and then sticking a bunch of 50-story wind turbines on top of it.

I'm very supportive of the Federal side of LWCF, but as a former Governor, I can't overstate how important the stateside grant program is for recreation, habitat and open spaces.

The problem with renewable energy for this country is the one of scale.

We have spent more than a century and billions of dollars of public and private money protecting these landscapes and these areas.

My concern is especially with the ridges of the Eastern United States, as you know, because we have talked about it because they are the only place, except for the coastlines, where wind works well.

I am happy, A, that you are focusing on treasured landscapes and, B, that the President--over the last 6 weeks-- has begun to take significant steps to encourage nuclear power because it has less impact on the landscape.

The point I am leading to is that we often talk with renewable energy about 1,000 megawatts of electricity for wind and solar when only a one-third of that is actually produced by comparison with a coal plant or a gas plant or a nuclear…

I continue to be concerned because the Great Smoky Mountains... gets about one-half the funding of similar parks.

The State comes up pretty short.

I think your decisions have helped bring that to a successful conclusion.

I appreciate the difficult financial environment.

Our goal is not to eliminate surface mining of coal but to limit the practice of blowing off the top of a mountain and dumping the fill in streams.

And the purpose of our legislation is to fix that problem.

It will take strong national emission controls on coal plants for us to be able to meet your upcoming stricter local standards.

I want to make sure we know what we are doing.

I want to make sure that in the review of this issue that you have the maximum amount of peer review and good science so that everyone has confidence in the conclusion.

I have never suspected--I am not a scientist--that you could capture and sequester enough carbon from coal plants to make that all work.

I think you should do, and whether it should be hazardous waste, which I think it should not be.

The administration's proposal to cut State regulatory grants--a proposal that is based on the unsupported assumption that State permit fees can be quickly raised to fill the budget hole--is completely unrealistic.