to violence. they bomb india, the u.s., u.k., and sit back. this is no longer analytical. when are we as an international continent, everyone, going to take a look at this, especially the u.s.? guest: i think it was an incoherent question. i cannot say that the islamic world is somehow culturally inferior to other parts of the world or muslims are incapable of living peacefully. i think that is an asinine comment. in this situation, you have people all are peacefully trying to protest for greater social freedoms and political freedoms. i am not sure where you are

getting at saying these are individuals who are somehow -- by virtue of the fact that they are muslim, that they are incapable of this. >> the house could a vote on a legislation on tuesday. the legislation plans to take of spending for the justice and home security departments. they resume business on monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. in the senate, procedural vote is set to boost foreign tourism to the u.s. off the floor, several committees begin marking up their versions of health care legislation. the president hopes to sign a health care reform bill by a october. the senate returns monday. you can see them on c-span2.

>> there is still time to get your copy of c-span's to a dozen nine congressional directory. it has information on the cabinet, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors, plus district maps. it is $16.95. you can get it online or by calling in. >> a house hearing on the future of the national electricity grid from comments from several energy executives on the renewable energy goals. first, remarks from one congressman who is the chair of the subcommittee. this is about four hours.

>> welcome to this hearing. three weeks ago, the energy and commerce committee passed the american clean energy and security act of 2009. this landmark legislation on which the house will soon vote will revolutionize our nation's energy policies creating millions of clean energy jobs, saving consumers billions of dollars in energy costs, and unleashing trillions in new investment. the 21st century grid will play a central role in this revolution. reeling the country's best wind, solar, and geothermal resources to market, enabling the

electrification of our transportation system, and multiplying energy productivity through smart grid technology. the bill recognizes this role by establishing a new framework to plan the grid of the future. we tasked the federal energy regulatory commission with establishing a national grid planning principles which it will use to support and coordinate regional planning processes across the country. within three years, the commission must report back to congress on the results of this effort, together with recommendations for further congressional action if necessary. some believe we should go further by expanding federal authority to plan and site news transmission lines. that includes overriding state decisions to reject proposed lines and the using federal

authority if necessary. i think we need to look closely and skeptically whether such a step is warranted at this juncture. i urge caution for three reasons. first, if it is not broke, do not fix it. as several of our witnesses emphasize, there are a number of innovative and promising process is now under way from the midwest to the west. we should give those process these time to succeed. as one person's testimony emphasizes, one of the greatest obstacles to developing a grid for the future is not a lack of federal authority but uncertainty as to what energy policies that grid must serve. by establishing a national grenoble electricity standard, a firm cap on carbon pollution, and efficiency programs that will curb growth in electricity

demand, this bill will provide this certainty needed to guide a private, state, and regional development for the transmission system for tomorrow. second, look before you leap. transmission is amongst the most complex and controversial aspects of energy policy. today's hearing is the first hearing in this committee in this congress or the last congress on transmission. we cannot afford to take a ready, fire, an approach in this area. there appears to be a little common ground among score stakeholders. to give one example, we invited the edison electric institute which represents investor-owned utilities that own most of the nation's transmission systems to testify today.

they cordially declined in part because they were unable to agree on a witness that could represent the views of its membership. the testimony before us confirms that it is very tough to find agreement in this area. third, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. precipitous action could result in a policy that is ill suited to address the problems at hand and could lead to perverse consequences. for example, the western governors association will testify today that "some governors see little benefit in preventing state transmission line permitting process days, because the major hurdle for permitting transmission in the west has been securing permits from federal agencies." it is the federal government not

the state's that is the problem from the perspective of the western governors. several witnesses in the east emphasized that federal planning could undermine regional efforts to develop renewable resources and expansion of high carbon generation in the midwest. we need to take time, take a careful look at this and see what makes sense. today's hearing is an excellent beginning to this process. we have a great lineup of witnesses. a look forward to their testimo. i would like now to turn to a matter related to the subject of today's hearing, which has been brought to my attention. after i agreed, last month, to hold an oversight hearing on the subject of electricity transmission and the question of whether to adopt additional new legislation in this area, in addition to the regional

transmission planning language already in the bill, i directed my staff to obtain additional information about two important provisions of the 2005 policy act that also dealt with transmission and which are directly relevant to today's hearing. as part of the effort, the sub committee sent two letters to the federal regulatory commission. the first letter, dated june 3rd, dealt with the impact of the 2005 bills incentive rate provision on the construction of new transmission around the country. that letter was sent out last week. the second later, dated june 9th, dealt with the impact of the 2005 bill's repeal on the construction of new transmission. that letter was sent out tuesday. neither letter was related in any way to the allocation hearing that the sub committee held on tuesday on mid american holding ceo david's testimony

before the sub committee. they were being drafted prior to being aware that he would be a witness at the tuesday hearing. both letters with aimed at helping the sub committee. the letter contained eight questions. two of which referenced a comment in support of the appeal. this is a leading opnent. however, these questions were in no way seeking to intimidate him in any way for his appearance before the sub committee earlier this week. the day following the release of the letter, i heard from representative barton that minority leaders had concerns about the questions related to him and the timing of the letters released.

i made it clear there was no attempt to intimidate any witness. i sent a second letter to burke clarify i clarifying they should respond to the questions generically and not just look at mid americans specifically. a shared a draft of the letter mr. barton's staff and mr. terry's staff on wednesday night. immediately after they brought this issue to my attention. i responded immediately to their concerns. finally i reached out to inform him of what any intent was, toe clear up the understanding and make it absolutely clear that neither he nor his company are the focus of the sub committee's

inquiry. so i want to say to mr. barton, to mr. upon the ento the members on the other side of the aisle publicly what i already said to them privately. i would never seek to intimidate or retaliate against a person from having to come in and testify before the sub committee. i value the perspectives all of our witnesses bring. i regret any misunderstanding or misimpressions that the contents of the letter or the timing may have raised. that's why i immediately after learning of the minority concerns prepared a second letter to direct them to respond generically to the questions rather than focusing on mid american. that's why i addressed him

directly. which i have done. joe and fred and the other members, i want to let you know i have the personal greatest regard for you. in no way do i want to leave an impression that we would conduct hearings that were not fair and open to all of the members of the sub committee or the witnesses who appear at this meeting. now turn to recognize the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton. >> like many members on this side i do value your friendship. realize that we're good adversaries on a number of fronts. and we've been together on a number of fronts. i know that it is very important

that there is no intention to intimidate or pressure witnesses to testify in something that they perhaps don't believe in. i for one appreciate your zamt this morning. i appreciate you calling for the hearing on national transmission policy today. the electricity grid is of vital importance to the nation. we all know that. there were only minor mention of transmission in the waxman markey climate bill. weeks after the bill has been passed, we are having our first really big transmission hearing. we do have a long and distinguished panel today. i like to thank all of our witnesses for joining us. we would like to give special recognition to two companies.

i would hope that we can all work together on this issue as a move forward. this committing past limited without any consideration to the question of getting renewable electricity to population centers. the strongest winds are concentrated in low population areas. the strongest exposures by the sun are found in low populations as well. there are areas of high population that are inadequate high-voltage. if we are going to be serious about our power, we have to revamp the grid. to properly do so, we will have to block the losses from environmental groups that have increased costs and blotched -- blocked much.

let us put it in perspective. it costs $60 billion. in new transmission lines to reach the 20% mark for wind power. the lofty dollar cost of electricity would cost as much as $400 billion in transmission lines. if we're serious we must block the lawsuits and make real investments in the needed infrastructure. good example of these lawsuits is found in california. the proposed sunrise power link at southern california will connect the region to existing and proposed renewable energy sources. whether they be wind, solar, or geothermal. perhaps as much as 2 million megawatts of geothermal power in the area. without new power lines the clean green energy could not be delivered to its customers. studies show that the line will reduce greenhouse gas emissions

by 1.3 million tons. various environmental groups are fighting it. the remote areas are often the best. transmission lines are needed to get energy to consumers. it's a mistake to legislate a costly renewable mandate without addressing the transmission issue. with all of that said, we must also recognize that many ru e renewable energy sources are unreliable and can bring instability to the grid. transmission lines cannot distinguish between the green electrons or the brown ones. we just can't be planning the transmission system for renewables. we have to take all sources into account. wind, nuclear, coal, everything else. changes need to be made to the current regulatory system.

we must also be mindful of the cost. consumers need to understand what they're going to pay for and what they're getting for their hard-earned money. consumers will already have increased rate increases. these costs will only go up under the waxman bill. >> time has expired. we recognize the gentleman from washington state. >> thank you, mr. chair. thanks both for holding this hearing and your great work. i think that bill is a tremendous mosaic.

but it's missing one critical piece. that's the piece to help us spur the development truly of a 21st century national grid. we have to recognize that today, despite the tremendous efforts of people in the field, we have a grid fit for the 19th or 20th century, but not for the new challenges of the new american energy policy. the way i would categorize the new challenge is we used to be able to move our energy components around by truck and rail. we could move coal to the site we wanted to generate electricity. we cannot shift on rail cars, nor can we shift wind by packages by truck. they have to be generated, the

electricity has to be generated where they're located. story for the first scenario. but not the second. hoping to advance our ability to plan, site and finance the new grid fit for the 21st century. i've introduced hr 49. made some progress in the bill. in hopes to achieve this goal in this energy bill. i want to note several things. number one, our good system is doing good work today. i'm not sure you can say the grid is broken. you can have a horse and buggy system that's working. we know it will not be fit for the challenges of tomorrow.

if we are going to meet appropriately and necessarily. we need to allow transmission to move forward. second the reason that we're hear today and the reason we need to act today is that this is the only vehicle moving out of town. it will be the last chance and only chance to really move forward on the this effort. we can't move forward without a transmission piece. i think lincoln's old quote fits. as our case is new so should we think anew. the reason it's necessary is two-fold. our grid has always been designed for regional and local interests. now we now have national need

for a national grid. we know while our constituents love electricity, none of them love electrical lines. there's a time and place where uncle sam needs to step in to overcome the reluctance of all of us to deal with the aspects of electricity. it's necessary. we know we cannot wait decades. i'm excited about hearing the testimony. i happy we can get the job done in this bill. thank you. chair recognizes the ranking member, the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. since we have an oversight hearing on upstairs it helps me to give my statement. i'm going to give a double statement.

we'll talk about the hearing. then i want to comment on your personal comments. first on the hearing before us. it's scare iry when i agree with jay insley. but i do agree. his bill was directed towards clean energy or green energy. once you direct the energy, by wind solar or coal power, electricity is going to go on the same wires. the wires don't know what the source of the generation was. so with do need to update the transmission grid. we started the process in the energy policy act of 2005. i thought we had bipartisan

support. it became law. the fourth circuit ruled recently that parts of this are not as they should be. i disagree with the court ruling. i hope the supreme court will overturn it. in any event. i agree with congressman insly that we need to modernize our grid. we do need to give more authority, in my opinion. to make decisions when the states can't do it themselves. we tried to do that. perhaps we can try it a different way. i don't know that we need to go that far for electricity.

there's a middle ground where the states can work together. in any event, mr. chairman, this is a good hearing. hopefully o of this will come consensus on both sides of taise about what to do legislatively. now when you were talking about the letters of june #th and the comments of the ceo of mid american. first of all i'm very appreciative of what you've said. it was not intended to intimidate. and that you called him to correct the misunderstanding. i appreciate you doing that. let me elaborate why people like myself have expressed concerns. you can't make the best public

policy if you don't have witnesses come before this committee and give their full honest assessment of whatever the issue is. if the only witnesses that are going to be received are witnesses that testify to the side of the the question that the majority is supporting. you don't have a full and fair debate on the issue. and in the instance that you alluded to, david represented a point of view that was contrary to the majority's position on the climate change legislation. and the allocation system that's a part of that. the allowance system. that side needs to be presented to the american people.

within two hours of him giving that testimony, a letter was sent with your signature asking six generic questions, and two specific questions about david socol and his company. the chairman was asked to respond in writing to you by close of business yesterdayed. how can that note be perceived as an attempt to intimidate? testify in the morning, receive a letter sent in the afternoon to the chairman of the regulatory committee. asking probing questions about the conduct and business decisions of your company. now, i take you at your word when you say that was not intend ed and beginning to take step

steps to correct it. what upsets myself and others on the minority we do not accept that we can develop a mechanism where we allow any member to threaten, to intimidate, to abuse the power of the office that we're given to the people of the power of the congressional districts on behalf of the people of the united states of america. you're already taking steps to correct the perception that perhaps intimidate was being attempted. i commend you for that. you're going to get a letter from myself and mr. upton and other members from the minority later today asking that we consider those discussions to make sure that we make it absolutely clear that any citizen of this country can testify to whatever they believe

is the truth as they know it without fear or retribution. buttious again, you and i have been friends for 25 years. i hope we're going to be friends for another 25 if we both live that long. i have nothing but the utmost personal and professional respect for you and your conduct. and i'm honored to sit on the same committee as you. i've sat as chairman of the sub committee. i think we can get this worked out. but it's a serious issue. you're giving it that serious consideration. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman very much.