Amendment Text: H.Amdt.967 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (03/06/2012)

This Amendment appears on page H1188-1189 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H1180-H1190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2011

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2842.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 570 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2842.

                              {time}  1434


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2842) to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities 
for hydropower development under Federal reclamation law, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Chaffetz in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2842, the Bureau of 
Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 
2011. It authorizes hydropower at existing Bureau of Reclamation 
facilities and, by doing so, it allows placement of hydropower 
generators on existing man-made canals and pipes that have already gone 
through extensive environmental review.
  This is a bipartisan plan to create new American jobs, cut government 
red tape, and expand production of clean, renewable and low-cost 
hydropower.
  This past weekend President Obama once again tried to claim support 
for an all-of-the-above energy production, but unlike President Obama's 
empty rhetoric, House Republicans are taking real action to prove our 
commitment to expanding all forms of American energy.
  Americans have now experienced 27 consecutive days of rising gas 
prices, and now the national average is pushing closer to $4 a gallon. 
In order to address the skyrocketing prices, Republicans will continue 
to pursue an all-of-the-above approach that responsibly develops the 
natural resources that we have right here at home.
  The facts are, Mr. Chairman, we have followed through on this 
commitment by passing through the House bipartisan reforms to break 
down government barriers to American energy production. Just weeks ago, 
the House passed a bipartisan jobs plan to vastly expand access to our 
oil and natural gas resources offshore and in ANWR. Today we're putting 
forth a plan to expand production of clean, renewable hydropower.
  As families and small businesses across the country are worried about 
rising gasoline prices, they are also worried about escalating 
electricity costs. Rising energy prices are a drain on our economy, 
pure and simple. It increases business costs and makes everything we do 
more expensive.
  Hydropower is one of the cleanest and cheapest forms of electricity. 
In my view, coming from the Pacific Northwest, where nearly 70 percent 
of our power comes from hydropower, hydropower is the poster child for 
clean, renewable energy. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the 
Federal Government is one of the biggest obstacles to increasing the 
development of hydropower projects, especially small projects.
  This bill would remove government roadblocks and streamline the 
duplicative regulatory process for developing small canal and pipeline 
hydropower projects on existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities. This 
commonsense plan would help generate thousands of megawatts of clean, 
cheap, abundant and reliable hydroelectricity. Furthermore, it allows 
for hydropower generation without a single new dam, and at no cost to 
the Federal Government.
  Now, let there be no mistake. I am a proponent of new dams. But this 
bill rightly harnesses hydropower potential at existing facilities. 
Water users throughout the West will be empowered to develop hydropower 
at the Federal canals they operate and maintain.
  It's once again important to note that this bill only allows for 
small hydropower projects on existing canals and pipelines. Such 
manmade facilities are already on what I would call disturbed ground 
and have already gone through extensive environmental reviews.
  Furthermore, this bill is a revenue generator for the Federal 
Government. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, 
estimates that it will generate $5 million over the next 10 years 
through increased hydropower production and rental fees associated with 
it.
  H.R. 2842 affirms Republicans' commitment to a true, all-of-the-above 
energy plan. It will create jobs in rural areas, lower energy prices, 
and expand production of clean, renewable American energy by simply 
getting the Federal Government out of the way.
  This bill received bipartisan support in the Natural Resources 
Committee and is endorsed by the Family Farm Alliance, the National 
Water Resources Association, the American Public Power Association, and 
the Association of California Water Agencies.

                              {time}  1440

  I want to commend the bill's sponsors, Mr. Tipton of Colorado and Mr.

[[Page H1181]]

Gosar of Arizona, for their work on this.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I do rise in support of the general premise--I repeat--the general 
premise of this legislation, but oppose the legislation as amended. I 
would like to mention that only 3 out of 15 Democrats support it. So 
while it is bipartisan, it is minor bipartisanship on this particular 
issue.
  H.R. 2842 does seek to generate additional hydropower at the existing 
Bureau of Reclamation facilities--that is, Federal properties--through 
developing new process of conduit and in-canal hydropower, which we 
should be developing at a greater speed and length.
  We cannot support this bill as amended, even though the original bill 
did also state it and an attempt was tried to be able to take this 
waiver language out on page 4, lines 12 to 15. We were unsuccessful, 
and we cannot support it because it does have a NEPA waiver, language 
that we cannot support.
  We are in support of the general intent. H.R. 2842, the Federal 
conduits, continue to fall under Reclamation Lease of Power Privilege 
process, LOPP. It requires offering a preference to irrigation 
districts or water users associations with an existing contract, those 
that already have a contract, which we support.
  It safeguards current project users by recognizing the project's 
primary authorized purposes and that no financial and/or operational 
costs will be incurred by the existing water and power users.
  The Federal Power Marketing Administrations are also--and I repeat--
are not obligated to purchase or market the power produced.
  The legislation does go a step too far and includes an unnecessary 
and unwise blanket exemption from a critical environmental law.
  If my colleagues on the other side had simply followed the advice of 
the National Hydropower Association and the conservation group American 
Rivers, we would have a noncontroversial bill which would have passed 
unanimously out of the House. We also received a letter from six 
environmental groups in opposition that I would like to include in the 
Record.
  Proponents for exempting the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, 
will argue that government regulatory red tape is preventing the 
development of more hydropower. Reclamation already has the authority 
to comply with NEPA through categorical exemptions, and the system is 
working. Categorical exclusions have been issued for hydropower sites 
under the reclamation's LOPP process at three specific sites in 
Colorado: the Lemon, which was in 1989; the Grand Valley Power Plant in 
2011; and Jackson Gulch in 1995.
  NEPA compliance for other sites, in fact, has not been the 
bureaucratic chaos some would make it out to be. There are three 
projects in the home State of Colorado for my colleague, the sponsor of 
this bill. In Jordanelle, Utah, compliance took 15 months from start to 
finish to receive final permit in 2004. At Lake Carter, Colorado, it 
took 6 months to finish NEPA in 2010. At Ridgway, Colorado, an LOPP was 
just issued last month after completing a 15-month NEPA process. On the 
South Canal Drop 3 site in Colorado, a finding of ``no significant 
impact'' was just issued last month after a 15-month NEPA process.
  Developers and irrigators need clarity and certainty so their project 
can be developed. Waiving NEPA will not provide clarity and certainty. 
The stopgap for development is not NEPA; it's a lack of a Reclamation 
process. There must be a clear process in place for the development of 
hydropower at Reclamation facilities.
  I urge Reclamation to finalize the directives and standards as soon 
as possible, and it's my understanding the draft is already out to 
developers and irrigators for their view, and the final directives and 
standards will be completed by the end of this year.
  It is unfortunate that this legislation contains this controversial 
waiver. Without the NEPA exemption, this legislation would have been on 
suspension, and I do oppose the legislation and ask my colleagues to 
join me in opposition to this very sad portion of waiver of NEPA.

                                                    March 6, 2012.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations, on 
     behalf of our millions of members and supporters are writing 
     to express our opposition to the provision in Section 2 of 
     H.R. 2842 that waives the National Environmental Policy Act 
     (NEPA) with respect to small conduit hydropower projects at 
     Bureau of Reclamation facilities.
       While we support the legislation's intent to encourage the 
     responsible development of renewable energy projects, waiving 
     NEPA reviews for Bureau of Reclamation projects is 
     unnecessary and unacceptable. The National Environmental 
     Policy Act is not a roadblock to the successful approval of 
     conduit hydropower projects at Bureau facilities. We believe 
     that this backward step will not accelerate hydropower 
     development. Rather, our experience has shown us that 
     attempts to shortcut or sidestep environmental review 
     typically result in delayed projects.
       Successfully advancing the development of new energy 
     resources, like conduit hydropower, requires us to do better 
     than we have done with other forms of energy and other Bureau 
     of Reclamation projects. While we do not oppose the 
     development of conduit hydropower, it must be done 
     responsibly and under all of the appropriate reviews 
     necessary to make sure that such development is consistent 
     with the public interest; a guarantee that NEPA provides.
       Therefore we respectfully request that you oppose H.R. 2842 
     unless the language requiring a NEPA waiver is struck from 
     the bill.
           Sincerely,
     American Rivers,
     Center for Biological Diversity,
     Defenders of Wildlife,
     Grand Canyon Trust,
     Natural Resources Defense Council,
     The Wilderness Society.
                                  ____

                                               National Hydropower


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 2012.
     Hon. Scott Tipton:
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Tipton: The National Hydropower 
     Association writes to express our appreciation for your work 
     to support development of the nation's conduit power 
     potential with your bipartisan bill, H.R. 2842, the Bureau of 
     Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural 
     Jobs Act of 2011.
       NHA believes there is tremendous untapped, renewable 
     hydropower potential in existing man-made structures such as 
     irrigation canals and other water conveyances, particularly 
     on the federal system. As such, the Association supports 
     policies encouraging these low-impact developments, while 
     also ensuring appropriate project reviews.
       NHA supports H.R. 2842, while also recommending a minor 
     amendment to Section 2 of the bill to align the Bureau's 
     treatment of these projects to that which they currently 
     receive, and have received since the 1980s, at the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission. Specifically, NHA believes a 
     provision that would require the Bureau to institute a NEPA 
     categorical exclusion for small conduit projects provides 
     appropriate oversight of these facilities, as longstanding 
     practice and experience at FERC has shown.
       As always, NHA stands ready to engage and work with 
     policymakers and all stakeholders on hydropower legislation 
     and policies. And again, we commend you for your work on this 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                              Linda Church Ciocci,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                              American Rivers,

                                                    March 6, 2012.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of American Rivers' 
     thousands of members nationwide, I am writing to express our 
     opposition to the provision in Section 2 of H.R. 2842 that 
     waives the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with 
     respect to small conduit hydropower projects at Bureau of 
     Reclamation facilities.
       American Rivers supports the responsible development of 
     conduit hydropower projects at Bureau facilities. We believe 
     that there is significant untapped potential at these 
     facilities for new hydropower generation. We believe that the 
     Bureau of Reclamation should improve its process for small 
     conduit hydropower permitting, modeling its process on that 
     used by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). We 
     believe that the Bureau should, like FERC, consider a 
     categorical exclusion for these types of projects in order to 
     facilitate their construction.
       Unfortunately, H.R. 2842 creates a blanket waiver of NEPA 
     for small conduit hydropower projects at Bureau facilities. 
     We hope that in the course of House consideration of the 
     bill, the NEPA waiver language can be amended. Pending that, 
     American Rivers reluctantly opposes H.R. 2842 in its current 
     form.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Jim Bradley,

                          Senior Director of Government Relations,
                                                  American Rivers.

  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
4

[[Page H1182]]

minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of 
this very important legislation.
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, Members of the House on both sides of the aisle talk of 
the need for an all-of-the-above energy solution for this country, a 
solution that gives serious consideration to all resources, including 
renewable and alternative energy.
  It's easy to talk about this need, but today I offer a bill that 
turns that talk into action. My bill, the Bureau of Reclamation Small 
Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012, is a key 
piece of the all-of-the-above strategy energy that our country needs in 
order to strengthen reliable, domestic energy production; expand 
development of responsible, renewable energy; generate economic growth; 
and get Americans working once more.
  Hydropower is the cheapest and cleanest source of electricity. This 
is created through modern technology. It's the highest source of non-
carbon emitting energy in the world, accounting for approximately 69.9 
percent of the United States' total renewable electricity generation, 
making it the lead renewable energy resource power, according to the 
Hydropower Association.
  In Colorado, nearly 30.7 percent of our renewable energy is 
hydropower, but only 3.1 percent of all Colorado is hydropower. We have 
a significant opportunity in Colorado to expand on this clean, 
renewable source of power while creating badly needed jobs for the 
Third District of Colorado in the process. In Colorado alone, there's 
enough existing capacity to generate as much power as the Glen Canyon 
Dam. However, as it stands, no major hydroelectric facilities have been 
built in many years. Existing facilities are being drained by endless 
litigation and regulatory obstacles that stifle production and lead to 
an increase in electricity prices and shortages in many regions of the 
country.
  By streamlining the regulatory process and reducing administrative 
costs for small hydropower development at Reclamation's facilities, 
this commonsense legislation will encourage the production of clean, 
renewable hydropower and provide much needed opportunities for the 
creation of new jobs in Colorado for some of our Nation's hardest hit 
rural areas.
  This commonsense bill garnered bipartisan support in the House 
Natural Resources Committee and has been endorsed by the Family Farm 
Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the Association of 
California Water Agencies, and the American Public Power Association.
  Chris Treese of the Family Farm Alliance and a constituent of mine in 
the Third Congressional District put it best when talking about the 
need for the bill:

       The margins on small hydro are very small. Districts need 
     to be able to make timely investment decisions without the 
     prospect of environmental reviews of undetermined length and 
     expense. Additionally, Western water districts share the 
     Nation's desire to make investments that can put people to 
     work immediately. Environmental reviews of small hydro on 
     existing conduits represent an unnecessary and often chilling 
     uncertainty for an economically marginal investment.

  This legislation, which applies to all projects on Reclamation 
conduits without exception, seeks to address this concern and fix an 
unwieldy environmental review process that requires small developers to 
jump through unnecessary and duplicative bureaucratic hoops in order to 
complete a project on existing conduits that has already undergone the 
proper environmental reviews. By doing this, the Bureau of Reclamation 
Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2012 will 
jump-start small hydropower development through which power generated 
will be sent directly to the grid and also create revenues that will 
help pay for aging infrastructure in our communities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. TIPTON. From the beginning, this Congress has made responsible 
energy development a legislative priority with the goal of putting 
forward a comprehensive solution that expands the development of 
alternative and renewable energy technologies while continuing the 
development of traditional energy resources.
  We have an opportunity to join together in this body and pass a 
commonsense solution to advance the common goal of developing clean and 
renewable alternative energy and to put into place a key component of 
an all-of-the-above energy plan.
  I ask my colleagues to take this into consideration and to remember 
the words that are inscribed in this very Chamber from Daniel Webster, 
saying:

       Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its 
     powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great 
     interests, and see whether we also in our day and generation 
     may not perform something worthy to be remembered.

  Hydropower development follows in the legacy of the responsible 
development of our precious natural resources with the steadfast 
protection of our environment. So I ask my colleagues for their support 
of the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and 
Rural Jobs Act of 2011.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I couldn't agree with him more. My only objection is 
the small portion of the NEPA waiver.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Ranking Member Markey.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
  After 427 days in the majority and having no energy or jobs strategy 
to show for it, House Republicans are now offering H.R. 2842, the 
Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural 
Jobs Act.
  We need legislation that gets hydro projects moving and that gets 
hard hats down in the ditches again. Instead, Republicans are offering 
more legislation that is certain to be ditched by the Senate. We should 
encourage the development of small hydropower projects at existing 
facilities. In fact, if the legislation simply gave the Bureau of 
Reclamation exclusive jurisdiction to develop hydropower at Federal 
reclamation facilities, I would support it. If it mandated that the 
Bureau of Reclamation institute categorical exclusions for their small 
hydro projects, I would support it.
  But Republicans, they just couldn't help themselves. It doesn't 
matter the nature of the problem. For Republicans, the problem is 
always just nature, so they went and gutted environmental review 
altogether in this bill. That's what happens when your entire economic 
platform is deregulation and gutting safety and environmental 
protections. You start waiving environmental review even when the 
industry you're trying to help isn't asking for it. If the Republicans 
had simply followed the advice of the hydro industry, we would have a 
noncontroversial bill that I could support and recommend to all of the 
Democratic Members that we pass 435 to nothing out here on the House 
floor this afternoon. Instead, it's ideology over hydrology. That's 
what the Republicans bring to the floor today.
  If Republicans are serious about advancing the hydro industry, here 
is what they can do: extend the production tax credit, support clean 
renewable energy bonds, support domestic clean energy manufacturing tax 
credits, and extend the section 1603 renewable energy grant program.
  Here is what those successful Recovery Act programs have already 
done:
  Three companies have received $67 million in tax credits to build 
hydro-related manufacturing facilities in the United States. Eight 
companies have received $2 million in grants to support hydro 
deployment under the 1603 renewable energy grant program. Clean 
renewable energy bonds have supported $531 million in public power 
hydro projects across the country.
  But Republicans aren't interested in doing something constructive for 
hydro or for any other clean energy technology. With their oil-above-
all strategy, Republicans want to continue subsidizing the oil and gas 
industry $4 billion annually--$40 billion over 10 years--but shut down 
all of the clean energy programs that I just outlined. They're going 
directly after any and all threats to Big Oil and Big Coal, and they're 
targeting clean energy jobs for elimination.

[[Page H1183]]

  Republicans on our committee have reported out a bill that would 
repeal the borrowing authority that the Western Area Power 
Administration currently has to help finance transmission serving 
renewable energy projects. Between one project in Montana that is 
already under construction and three others that are deep into 
development, there are 11,500 jobs at stake, but the Republicans don't 
care about those 11,500 jobs.
  Then there is the wind industry. Ten thousand American workers have 
already been cut in the wind industry because the production tax credit 
is expiring at the end of the year and orders are drying up; 27,000 
more wind workers will lose their jobs if Republicans get their way and 
raise taxes on the wind industry beginning on December 31 of this year.
  A clean energy wave is upon us. America needs a vibrant domestic 
hydro industry, along with a healthy wind, solar, geothermal, and 
biomass industry, if we are to capture its benefits. Otherwise this 
wave will crash down upon us and, instead, carry the Chinese and the 
Indian and German economies to prosperity.
  Let us vote down this bad bill before us and move on to the real 
policies that will help America's hydro sector.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this 
legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts that nothing in this 
measure has anything at all to do with oil production. Quite the 
contrary, this bill reduces our reliance on fossil fuels by bringing 
hundreds of thousands of megawatts of new, clean hydroelectricity to 
the grid.

  I don't understand the objection to this bill. This measure by Mr. 
Tipton does everything the environmental left says that it likes: At 
precisely no cost to taxpayers, it produces absolutely clean and 
renewable electricity in vast quantities, on projects that have already 
undergone environmental review, simply by installing small generators 
in existing pipelines and canals where there are no fish or no flora or 
no fowl of any kind.
  This is the alpha and omega of Mr. Tipton's bill. Authorize these 
simple projects on existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities. That's 
it.
  There are untold thousands of miles of pipelines and canals and 
aqueducts attached to these facilities that convey water by simple 
gravity. There is water in these existing facilities that is utterly 
devoid of any life whatsoever, and there is no conceivable 
environmental impact whatsoever. These existing pipelines, if equipped 
with simple hydroelectric generators, could generate electricity that 
would take several major multibillion-dollar hydroelectric dams across 
the West to produce.
  In fact, our committee took testimony that, in Colorado alone, the 
hydroelectric facilities' small generators that would be encouraged by 
this bill could produce as much power as is currently produced by the 
entire Glen Canyon Dam. Now, multiply that throughout the United 
States, and you begin to realize what a huge impact this could have on 
new, clean, affordable energy for America.
  Those hydroelectric generators are not going into these pipelines 
right now for one simple and utterly absurd reason: government 
regulations make it economically impossible to do so. Our subcommittee 
took testimony from farmers in water districts who were trying to 
install these generators; but instead of doing everything it can to 
assist them, this administration smothers them with endless regulatory 
delays, demands for wildly expensive environmental studies and 
exorbitant permitting fees.
  According to testimony before the committee that the gentleman from 
Colorado cited, the net effect of these environmental regulations can 
more than double the cost of these projects, simply pricing them out of 
reach. In one case, a witness told us that a $20,000 small generator 
project would have required $50,000 in permitting costs, and so it 
doesn't move forward.
  Congressman Tipton's bill, instead, welcomes these small 
hydroelectric generators by authorizing their placement in existing 
Bureau of Reclamation conduits. It invites existing operators and users 
to invest in these generators at no public cost. It establishes an 
office within the Bureau of Reclamation with the responsibility to 
assist projects, and it exempts them from paying for another costly, 
time-consuming, and pointless NEPA study when there is no conceivable 
environmental impact involved. These facilities already underwent the 
environmental process when they were built, when they were upgraded, or 
when their repayment contracts were renewed. It is simply a waste of 
time and money to put them through yet another review before these 
small generators can be installed.
  I mean, think about the implications just to farming alone. Some 
irrigation districts are forced to use diesel generators to pump water 
to the fields. Put hydroelectric generators in existing canals and 
pipelines, and they become virtually self-sustaining while reducing 
their reliance on other sources of electricity that produce air 
emissions.

                              {time}  1500

  In addition, sales of canal-based electricity could generate local 
revenue for irrigators, which would help upgrade existing facilities 
and infrastructure, create jobs and relieve exhausted Federal taxpayers 
of these costs. The construction of these generators would mean new 
high-paying jobs for Americans.
  It is truly mystifying that a nation plagued by prolonged economic 
stagnation, chronic unemployment, and increasingly scarce and expensive 
electricity would adopt a willful and deliberate policy obstructing the 
construction of these inexpensive and innocuous generators in already-
existing facilities.
  Mr. Chairman, there are fewer Americans working today than on the day 
that Barack Obama took office more than 3 long years ago. During that 
period, he has taken well over a trillion dollars from the earnings of 
hardworking American families to funnel to well-connected companies, 
claiming to create jobs. In the case of Solyndra, it penciled out to 
$450,000 per job, jobs that disappeared as soon as the government money 
ran out.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman.
  Yet here, with this measure, at no cost to these hardworking 
families, at no cost to the environment, simply by getting absurdly and 
utterly duplicative government regulations out of the way, we could add 
tens of thousands of megawatts of clean and cheap electricity to our 
domestic energy supply, produce permanent jobs, reduce our reliance on 
fossil fuels, and lower the utility bills of American families.
  Our Nation desperately needs clean, affordable, and abundant 
electricity; and it desperately needs permanent jobs. To get them, it 
most of all needs common sense restored to its government. The progress 
the American people have made in doing that, as well as the unfinished 
business remaining before them, will be very precisely measured by the 
roll call on this bill.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 20\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to a 
cosponsor of this legislation and a very valuable member of the Natural 
Resources Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill Congressman 
Tipton and I have worked closely on, H.R. 2842, the Bureau of 
Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 
2011.
  Arizona has been hit hard by the recent recession. The rural counties 
that I represent are faced with unemployment rates that far exceed the 
national average. This bill could provide a little of the much-needed 
relief for these communities.
  The Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and

[[Page H1184]]

Rural Jobs Act of 2011 is commonsense legislation that will create jobs 
in rural Arizona, increase our country's renewable energy portfolio, 
and generate revenues for the Federal Treasury by cutting duplicative, 
bureaucratic redtape.
  Specifically, it would allow Arizonans that operate existing 
irrigation canals and ditch systems, man-made canals and pipes as you 
can see from here, to install hydropower generators. To be clear, we 
are not talking about free-flowing rivers or streams. These are man-
made structures that have already gone through environmental review. 
These canals, as you can see, do not contain endangered fish or 
wildlife.
  I worked very closely with the Irrigation & Electrical Districts 
Association of Arizona, the special districts, municipalities, Indian 
utility authorities and project managers that are engaged in the 
management and delivery of water and power in my State as Congressman 
Tipton and I crafted this legislation.
  I am proud to be from a State that is as innovative and as 
resourceful as Arizona. Our State is a leader in developing safe ways 
to tap into our natural resources, which provides much-needed energy 
and jobs.
  Unfortunately, due to Federal constraints, Arizona is unable to fully 
tap its hydroelectric power generation potential because of the 
duplicative regulations that make it too expensive and burdensome to 
develop. It is simply the failure of the Federal policies to facilitate 
an environment that is conducive to this type of development. Instead 
of working with communities that share common goals and values, the 
Federal Government is dictating to them.
  The experts on the ground in Arizona say that we are literally 
sitting on a hydropower gold mine waiting for the needed clarifications 
and streamlining that will cut costs and make this program more 
attractive.
  This bill does just that. For example, the Maricopa-Stanfield 
Irrigation & Drainage District, located in Pinal County, Arizona, 
estimates that it has the capacity to build 14 to 17 hydropower units 
if this legislation is signed into law. Those units could generate a 
total of approximately 2,200 kilowatts of renewable energy, which is 
enough electricity to power 550 to 1,000 homes. This is just one of the 
power managers in my State.
  Another district, the Central Irrigation and Drainage District 
centered in Eloy, Arizona, has indicated they could install eight to 10 
hydropower units with a capacity of 1,200 to 1,500 kilowatts of 
renewable energy, another 500 or so homes. These economic impacts are 
not small for these rural communities. They would provide a real 
economic boost and will reduce consumer energy costs.
  There is not one solution to our Nation's energy crisis, but 
hydropower is clearly part of an overall all-options-on-the-table 
solution. Hydropower is the highest source of noncarbon-emitting energy 
in the world. It accounts for approximately 70 percent of the United 
States' total renewable electricity generation, and we are not even 
tapping the potential. Investing in hydropower infrastructure will 
strengthen our economy and help move us towards energy independence.
  To top it off, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates 
that our bill will generate $5 million in Federal revenue over the next 
10 years. Increased revenues from the sale of this renewable energy can 
result in a new source of funding for operating, maintaining, and 
rehabilitating our aging water-delivery infrastructure at lower costs 
to farmers.
  This legislation is truly a win-win for the American people and is 
exactly the type of legislation this House should be passing.
  Vote ``yes'' on this bill, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit 
Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. It will create jobs 
in rural America, increase U.S. energy independence, and raise revenue 
for the U.S. Treasury.
  So I guess the opponents of this bill are right: if commonsense 
solutions are your cup of tea, then I guess I can't help myself. And 
this is at no--let me repeat myself and this fact--this renewable 
energy is at no cost to the taxpayer or the public.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with Mr. Gosar more 
on some of his presentation that the bureau would be able to expedite 
some of these projects, and they are working on that categorical 
exemption determination to be able to understand how they can expedite 
some of these projects.
  NEPA is not some radical piece of legislation. It was overwhelmingly 
approved by Congress more than four decades ago and signed into law by 
President Nixon.
  It is not an obstacle. It's a tool to be used to facilitate 
coordination, cooperation, and public input. It is not a barrier. It is 
a shield protecting our communities, yours and mine, from the 
unintended consequences that can occur when a big, clumsy Federal 
Government acts without thinking.
  NEPA does not and cannot prevent projects from going forward. They 
just require the government to analyze alternatives and, most 
importantly, seek public comment. Evidence that NEPA does not stop 
projects is plain. Our majority cannot provide a single example where 
NEPA prevented one of these small projects, the hydroprojects from 
moving forward. Most applications are granted expeditiously and easily. 
It also provides the Bureau of Reclamation all the flexibility 
necessary to apply NEPA quickly and efficiently to the projects. There 
is no delay.
  To oppose NEPA is to oppose public input. Again, it would then oppose 
public input. To oppose NEPA is to oppose thinking before we act.
  This unnecessary and unwise blanket waiver of NEPA should be struck 
from this bill and then this bill could be passed unanimously and go on 
to approval in our other body.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out what this bill does and the 
simplicity of this bill.
  In 1902 when this House, along with the other House, created the 
Bureau of Reclamation, which was to reclaim the land--that's where 
``reclamation'' comes from--it was designed to develop areas that 
heretofore did not have the resources with which to develop. Mainly, 
the resource they were lacking was water. And so the Bureau of 
Reclamation was created so that those arid areas, certainly my area of 
central Washington qualified as that because Grand Coulee Dam is a 
facility that irrigates the 500,000-plus acres in central Washington, 
but it was designed to develop areas that couldn't be developed before.
  So now we have these facilities in place all over the West. They've 
gone through extensive environmental reviews in order to be put into 
place. Yet even with the technology that makes irrigation better and 
better and more and more efficient, there still is water in these 
canals that goes back to the river, in my case the Columbia River. It 
starts in the Columbia River and ends up in the Columbia River some 120 
to 130 miles downstream. And during that process where the water goes 
to irrigate various parts of the project, we can better, more 
efficiently use that water by producing power, and that's what this 
legislation does.
  Again, we have gone through the extensive environmental review to 
build the ditch, the canal. We saw pictures of that earlier. All we're 
suggesting now is we put something in there to capture the water power 
to generate electricity. It's no more complicated than that. That's all 
this bill is about. So with that, while there is an objection to the 
NEPA process, there is an amendment that will address that, and we will 
have more extensive debate on that.
  But I would just repeat, Mr. Chairman, all of the building of the 
ditches, which is what really disturbs the land, that went through 
extensive environmental reviews to get to that point. We are now 
building within what we disturbed. Boy, to say that you have to have 
another process, environmental process, doesn't make sense, at least to 
this Member.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 18\1/2\ minutes, and 
the gentleman from Washington has 6 minutes.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that we 
fully

[[Page H1185]]

support the intent of the legislation without the exemption of NEPA 
stated on page 4, lines 12 15. And I must say that I have working 
relationships with some of my universities; and one of them, Cal Poly 
Pomona, has been working with hydrokinetics for awhile. We have been 
kind of tracking the issues of hydrokinetics and some of their results, 
the projects that they've got in New Jersey and New York, to be able to 
generate electricity. We have for at least 5 years been trying to make 
Congress and the committee understand that this is something that is 
very viable. Even the heat off the pumping motors is being recaptured 
and converted into electricity in one of my areas.
  So I fully understand and I'm glad that it's finally beginning to 
take hold that there is the ability to create electricity from hydro. 
We support increased generation at all facilities by developing conduit 
and in-canal hydropower.
  And, again, I support all of the provisions that I stated here, but 
waiving NEPA does not provide the clarity and the certainty needed to 
be a clear process for the development of hydro at reclamation 
facilities. That's Federal facilities only. We must ensure that the 
lease-of-power privilege, the law, is clear and does provide specific 
certainty. It should be consistent with the FERC process, as stated in 
the letter from the National Hydropower Association and American 
Rivers, as introduced into the Record. We will be proposing an 
amendment to fix the problem, and we want to make this in a truly 
bipartisan manner and look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
other side.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my 
friend from California if she has anymore speakers on the debate 
portion of this.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I do not.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. If not, I am prepared to yield back and 
start the amendment process if the gentlelady yields back.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in order to debate 
H.R. 2842. ``Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development 
and Rural Jobs Act'' would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to 
permit private entities to develop small hydropower units on all 
irrigation canals and conduits under the agency's jurisdiction. Under 
current law, the Bureau or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
FERC, has jurisdiction over hydropower development at such facilities.
  Currently both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the 
Bureau of Reclamation have the authority to manage small conduit 
hydropower projects in all Bureau of Reclamation irrigation canals and 
conduits. This bill would give this authority only to the Bureau of 
Reclamation thereby streamlining regulation. There will be jobs created 
by this measure, however not enough to be considered a Rural Jobs bill. 
The American people need a jobs bill.
  I would have supported this legislation without hesitation if this 
bill did not contain a poison pill. As written I am concerned about a 
provision in the bill that would exempt small conduit hydropower 
projects from having to comply with the National Environmental Policy 
Act, NEPA. H.R. 2842 removes the requirement that all small hydropower 
projects must complete an environmental impact statement unless granted 
an exception from FERC. Although my colleagues who support this 
legislation will argue that NEPA compliance for small conduit 
hydropower is unnecessary and hinders developers from pursuing small 
conduit hydropower projects. There is a valid and proven counter to 
this argument.
  Currently FERC has a successful licensing process for small conduit 
hydropower showing that compliance with NEPA need not hinder 
responsible development. FERC categorically exempts small conduit 
projects from NEPA. This approach works: from 2006 2010, 13 conduit 
exemptions were completed in less than a year. Of the 11 conduit 
exemptions that were issued in 2011, orders regarding the nine conduit 
exemptions that presented no substantive issues were issued on average 
40 days after the comment deadline established in the public notice. We 
can protect our environment while meeting the needs of rural 
communities in need of an additional green energy resource.
  I will continue to seek ways to improve the nation's hydropower 
system by encouraging increased generation while improving 
environmental performance.
  Let me be clear, I support hydropower in both large scale and small 
projects that are developed and operated in a responsible manner that 
avoids harm to America's precious river resources. Given the very real 
environmental and social impacts of global climate change--especially 
on vital freshwater systems--I believe that we should develop new 
sources of energy that can supplement America's reliance on foreign 
oil.
  However, I also know that the energy that we receive from hydropower 
if done improperly comes at an enormous cost to the health of our 
nation's rivers and communities.
  The harm caused by any hydropower project can be avoided if 
hydropower is sited, constructed, and operated in a responsible manner. 
A few simple changes can make an enormous difference, which is why 
compliance with NEPA is important.
  In the case of larger scale hydropower projects, hydropower operators 
could change the timing of power generation to mimic a river's natural 
hydrologic conditions, stabilize lake levels and dam releases to 
protect riverside land from erosion, provide fish ladders and other 
measures that protect fish and allow them to pass safely upstream and 
downstream of dams, restore habitat for fish and wildlife, alter the 
design and operation of plants to maintain appropriate temperature and 
oxygen levels in rivers, and provide public access and release water 
back into rivers so that people can fish, boat, and swim. These types 
of changes have a miniscule impact on the overall generation of the 
Nation's hydropower fleet. In fact, an analysis by FERC found that 
since Congress passed laws in the 1986s to encourage these types of 
improvements, overall generating capacity has actually increased by 4.1 
percent. The benefits to human and natural communities have been 
immense.
  The Bureau of Reclamation was established to construct water works to 
provide water for irrigation and power for utilities in arid western 
states. The agency manages a number of facilities as part of larger, 
multi-purpose reclamation projects serving irrigation, flood control, 
power supply, and recreation purposes. Overall, these facilities serve 
approximately 31 million people, delivering a total of approximately 
28.5 million acre-feet of water (an acre-foot is enough to cover one 
acre of land one foot deep, or 325,851 gallons) and making the agency 
the second largest domestic hydropower producer. H.R. 2842 seeks to 
utilize these existing irrigation channels/waterways by inserting small 
conduits to create hydro power.
  Hydropower is a clean, renewable, non-emitting source of energy that 
provides low-cost electricity and helps reduce carbon emissions. It is 
more efficient than any other form of electricity generation and 
offsets more carbon emissions than all other renewable energy sources 
combined.
  It accounts for 67 percent of the Nation's total renewable 
electricity generation. In addition to providing low-cost electricity, 
multipurpose dams provide water for irrigation, wildlife, recreation 
and barge transportation and offer flood control benefits.
  As part of the New Deal, the Roosevelt Administration sought to 
bridge the urban-rural divide in access to electricity. In the early 
1930s, according to one estimate, 90 percent of Americans in urban 
areas had access to electric power, while only 10 percent of rural 
America had access.
  The establishment of the Rural Electrification Administration, REA, 
in 1935 sparked a series of Federal investments that brought power to 
rural American homes over the coming years. By 1939, the REA had helped 
to establish more than 400 rural electric cooperatives, which served 
nearly 300,000 households.
  Today, the RUS continues to provide credit and other assistance to 
help improve electric, water, and telecommunications services in rural 
areas. For example, between 2002 and 2009, the RUS invested $36 billion 
in electric systems and $14 billion in water and waste management 
systems throughout rural America. Small hydropower projects help to 
address the electricity needs of rural areas in a green way.
  The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation also provides 
hydropower, and drinking water and irrigation services to rural 
America. Today, the Bureau is the Nation's largest wholesaler of water, 
serving 31 million people, and provides irrigation to one out of five 
western farmers. This is a very clever manner to use existing water 
ways and existing technology to create electricity.
  Three manufacturers in the Nation build these small conduits. 
Apparently they are so prevalent that they are available at Home Depot. 
Again hydropower represents approximately two-thirds of the renewable 
electricity generation in the United States and is currently providing 
almost seven percent of the

[[Page H1186]]

country's total energy generation. About forty-five percent of all 
hydropower in the United States is generated at federally-owned 
facilities. With only three percent of the Nation's approximately 
eighty thousand federal and non-federal dams currently generating 
hydropower there is great potential to increase hydropower production. 
Additional hydropower can be sited, constructed, and operated in a 
responsible manner to reduce or avoid environmental damages.


                               FAST FACTS

  Each kilowatt-hour of hydroelectricity is produced at an efficiency 
of more than twice that of any other energy source. Where hydropower 
does have environmental impacts, particularly on fish species and their 
habitats and extensive work is done within the Bureau to evaluate and 
mitigate these impacts.
  Further, hydropower is very flexible and reliable when compared to 
other forms of generation. Reclamation has nearly 500 dams and dikes 
and 10,000 miles of canals and owns 58 hydropower plants, 53 of which 
are operated and maintained by Reclamation. On an annual basis, these 
plants produce an average of 40 million megawatt, MW, hours of 
electricity, enough to meet the entire electricity needs of over 9 
million people on average.
  Reclamation is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in 
the United States, and today we are actively engaged in looking for 
opportunities to encourage development of additional hydropower 
capacity at our facilities.
   Conventional hydropower is one of the oldest and most well-
established among a growing number of technologies that provide low-
emissions alternatives to fossil-fuel energy. Nationally, hydropower 
provides about 75,000 megawatts of capacity, and represents nearly 7 
percent of total generation.
  It is anticipated that hydropower will continue to be a part of our 
Nation's energy mix for years to come, and accordingly we have signed 
dozens of agreements supporting the continued, long-term operation of 
hydroelectric dams that together provide our Nation with thousands of 
megawatts of generating capacity. Reasonable modifications have 
dramatically improved the performance of these dams, providing fish 
passage, improving flows, enhancing water quality, protecting riparian 
lands, and restoring recreational opportunities.
  Hydropower represents approximately two-thirds of the renewable 
electricity generation in the United States and is currently providing 
almost seven percent of the country's total energy generation. About 
forty-five percent of all hydropower in the United States is generated 
at federally-owned facilities.
   With only three percent of the nation's approximately eighty 
thousand federal and non-federal dams currently generating hydropower 
there is great potential to increase hydropower production.


   JOBS/ECONOMY/H.R. 3710--Deficit Reduction and Energy Security Act

  I am committed to producing tangible results in suffering communities 
through legislation that creates jobs, fosters minority business 
opportunities, and builds a foundation for the future. Every American 
deserves the right to be gainfully employed or own a successful 
business and I know we are all committed to that right and will not 
rest until all Americans have access to economic opportunity.
  It has been over 10 months since the Republicans took control of the 
House, and Republican Leadership has not considered a single jobs 
creation bill on the House floor.
  With the national unemployment rate at 9.2 percent, and almost 1.9 
million men and women who have exhausted the maximum of up to 99 weeks 
of state and Federal unemployment benefits, we cannot afford to 
continue with inaction.
  Rather than wait for the economic tide to turn, Congress must take 
advantage of its exceptional opportunity to create jobs by embracing 
the development of natural and renewable resources in a responsible and 
environmentally conscious partnership with the energy industry.
  I have recently introduced H.R. 3710 ``The Deficit Reduction and 
Energy Security Act of 2012.'' My bill would protect America's energy 
security, reduce the deficit, and create jobs.
  The energy industry has a long and storied history of facilitating 
robust job creation and economic growth. This legislation will help pay 
down the deficit and create jobs for workers with varying skill-levels 
nationwide. H.R. 3710 would also establish the Coastal and Ocean 
Sustainability Health Fund to provide grants for addressing coastal and 
ocean disasters, restoration, protection, and maintenance of coastal 
areas and oceans, as well as, research and programs in coordination 
with state and local agencies.
  Additionally, the Deficit Reduction and Energy Security Act 
establishes the Office of Energy Employment and Training, and the 
Office of Minority and Women Inclusion to help foster job creation for 
groups who have traditionally been underrepresented in the energy 
industry. H.R. 3710 will spur our Nation's economic growth.
  Working in a bipartisan spirit, Congress can aggressively take on the 
problem of job creation, by supporting measures like H.R. 3710.
  The energy sector provides us with an exceptional starting place. In 
fact, we need to only look to Houston and the state of Texas for a 
strong example of how embracing the development of our own natural and 
renewable resources can play a major role in spurring our economy.
  Texas serves as proof that the energy industry offers tremendous 
potential to provide jobs and foster economic growth. As a matter of 
fact, in 2008, Texas was one of the few states that saw its economy 
grow, grossing the second highest revenue of all states at $1.2 
trillion.
  As the Representative of the 18th Congressional District of Houston, 
Texas, I can attest to the importance of a healthy energy industry. My 
district is the energy hub of Texas and is recognized worldwide for its 
energy industry, particularly for oil and natural gas, as well as 
biomedical research and aeronautics. Renewable energy sources--wind and 
solar--are also growing economic bases in Houston.
  The energy industry and its supporting businesses provide my fellow 
Texans with tens of thousands of jobs, and have helped keep the state 
of Texas significantly below the national unemployment rate.
  This prosperity can expand well beyond Texas, if the federal and 
state governments will act decisively and responsibly to expand 
domestic energy productions in an environmentally conscious manner, and 
keep billions of dollars and countless jobs here at home.
  In fact, a study recently conducted by Wood Mackenzie indicates that 
the oil and natural gas industry has the potential to create 1 million 
new jobs over the next 7 years through responsible development of 
America's oil and natural gas resources, while generating an estimated 
$800 billion in revenue.
  Additionally, Wood Mackenzie concluded that responsible domestic oil 
and natural gas development, along with increasing imports from Canada, 
and cultivating a domestic biofuels energy program, the United States 
could achieve energy independence within 15 years.
  Expansion of our domestic energy industry presents us with the 
opportunity to divert the staggering amounts of money we spend on 
importing massive amounts of foreign oil. Instead, we can use these 
funds to make a considerable investment into our own American oil 
industry, which already pumps about $1 trillion into our economy and 
helps create jobs for many Americans across many other industries. 
Furthermore, we must also bolster our investments in natural gas, wind, 
solar, and other forms of renewable alternative energy.
  We must of course, act responsibly, and apply the safety lessons 
learned in the wake of the BP oil spill. Throughout my tenure in 
Congress, I have worked tirelessly to foster better relationship 
between the energy industry and regulating agencies. With an open 
dialogue and productive communication, we can forge compromise that 
will protect the environment without harming economic growth.
  The benefits of a seamless domestic energy policy go beyond just 
creating jobs in the energy sector. A seamless domestic energy policy 
also promotes the ongoing need to develop the best technology to reduce 
risks and improve efficiency.
  Demand for this technology creates an increased demand for Americans 
educated in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, STEM. The energy 
sector can partner with educational institutions to meet that demand, 
foster American innovation and increase American competitiveness in an 
increasingly globalized economy.
  The energy industry is putting my constituents back to work, and the 
Wood Mackenzie study indicates that increasing domestic development 
will create new jobs and generate government revenue.
  It is time for my colleagues to join me in a truly bipartisan effort 
to create jobs, improve our education system, and strengthen the 
economy. It is time to return to an age of American ingenuity and 
prosperity. It is time for a seamless domestic energy policy. It's time 
to support job creation it is time to support legislation like the bill 
I recently introduced H.R. 3710 ``The Deficit Reduction and Energy 
Security Act of 2012.''
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, printed in the bill, 
shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. Each section of the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be in order except: (1) those received for printing in the 
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose dated 
at least

[[Page H1187]]

1 day before the date of consideration of the amendment; and (2) pro 
forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so received 
may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or a 
designee and shall be considered as read if printed.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                               H.R. 2842

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bureau of Reclamation Small 
     Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011''.

  The CHAIR. Are there any amendments to section 1?


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tipton

  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 1, strike ``2011'' and insert ``2012''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical amendment that changes 
the year of the bill from 2011 to 2012, and I ask my colleagues to 
support this noncontroversial amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. Does any Member seek recognition?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.

       Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 
     U.S.C. 485h(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary is authorized to enter into 
     contracts to furnish water'' and inserting ``(1) The 
     Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts to furnish 
     water'';
       (2) by striking ``(1) shall'' and inserting ``(A) shall'';
       (3) by striking ``(2) shall'' and inserting ``(B) shall'';
       (4) by striking ``respecting the terms of sales of electric 
     power and leases of power privileges shall be in addition and 
     alternative to any authority in existing laws relating to 
     particular projects'' and inserting ``respecting the sales of 
     electric power and leases of power privileges shall be an 
     authorization in addition to and alternative to any authority 
     in existing laws related to particular projects, including 
     small conduit hydropower development''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) When carrying out this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall first offer the lease of power privilege to an 
     irrigation district or water users association operating the 
     applicable transferred work, or to the irrigation district or 
     water users association receiving water from the applicable 
     reserved work. The Secretary shall determine a reasonable 
     time frame for the irrigation district or water users 
     association to accept or reject a lease of power privilege 
     offer.
       ``(3) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to small conduit 
     hydropower development, excluding siting of associated 
     transmission on Federal lands, under this subsection.
       ``(4) The Power Resources Office of the Bureau of 
     Reclamation shall be the lead office of small conduit 
     hydropower policy and procedure-setting activities conducted 
     under this subsection.
       ``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall obligate the Western 
     Area Power Administration, the Bonneville Power 
     Administration, or the Southwestern Power Administration to 
     purchase or market any of the power produced by the 
     facilities covered under this subsection and none of the 
     costs associated with production or delivery of such power 
     shall be assigned to project purposes for inclusion in 
     project rates.
       ``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall alter or impede the 
     delivery and management of water by Bureau of Reclamation 
     facilities, as water used for conduit hydropower generation 
     shall be deemed incidental to use of water for the original 
     project purposes. Lease of power privilege shall be made only 
     when, in the judgment of the Secretary, the exercise of the 
     lease will not be incompatible with the purposes of the 
     project or division involved, nor shall it create any 
     unmitigated financial or physical impacts to the project or 
     division involved. The Secretary shall notify and consult 
     with the irrigation district or legally organized water users 
     association operating the transferred work in advance of 
     offering the lease of power privilege and shall prescribe 
     such terms and conditions that will adequately protect the 
     planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and 
     other interests of the United States and the project or 
     division involved.
       ``(7) Nothing in this subsection shall alter or affect any 
     existing agreements for the development of conduit hydropower 
     projects or disposition of revenues.
       ``(8) In this subsection:
       ``(A) Conduit.--The term `conduit' means any Bureau of 
     Reclamation tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, 
     or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the 
     distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or 
     industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation 
     of electricity.
       ``(B) Irrigation district.--The term `irrigation district' 
     means any irrigation, water conservation or conservancy 
     district, multicounty water conservation or conservancy 
     district, or any separate public entity composed of two or 
     more such districts and jointly exercising powers of its 
     member districts.
       ``(C) Reserved work.--The term `reserved work' means any 
     conduit that is included in project works the care, 
     operation, and maintenance of which has been reserved by the 
     Secretary, through the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
     Reclamation.
       ``(D) Transferred work.--The term `transferred work' means 
     any conduit that is included in project works the care, 
     operation, and maintenance of which has been transferred to a 
     legally organized water users association or irrigation 
     district.
       ``(E) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       ``(F) Small conduit hydropower.--The term `small conduit 
     hydropower' means a facility capable of producing 1.5 
     megawatts or less of electric capacity.''.

  The CHAIR. Are there any amendments to section 2?


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, strike lines 12 through 15.

  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment striking 
out language in section 2, page 4, lines 12 15. It removes the 
exemption of the NEPA waiver for small conduits on Federal land.
  The proponents of this measure again will argue that FERC regulations 
allow for categorical exemption for certain conduit hydropower projects 
that meet statutory and regulatory criteria and do not have the 
potential for significant environmental impacts. This is true.
  First, treatment of conduits is not the same. It is not the same as 
what the legislation attempts where all environmental regards are 
completely waived. This bill, H.R. 2842, as amended, proposes to 
totally exempt all small hydro from the FERC exemption process. 
Reclamation already has the same authority as FERC to develop a process 
of complying with NEPA. Reclamation has already been in the process of 
investigating whether small hydropower developed in conduits or canals 
may be appropriately placed under categorical exemption.
  As I stated before, the draft is already out. They are consulting 
with developers and irrigators to ensure that this bill is what they 
need. They have also granted specific categorical exemptions to three 
LOP projects, as mentioned in my opening statement. Low impact 
hydropower can be efficiently developed by utilizing existing 
environmental review provisions.
  We have seen examples of projects that have not unduly delayed 
project development, and I again point to the three projects as stated 
before utilizing the yellow pea process. I have placed the letters from 
the National Hydropower Association and American Rivers and others to 
highlight the views of the hydropower industry and the leading 
conservation group on hydropower. Both are supportive of H.R. 2842 as 
long as it is modeled after the process used by FERC.

                              {time}  1520

  It would provide for proper oversight, a longstanding practice FERC 
has shown.
  I urge my colleagues to vote positively ``yes'' on this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I think our opponents on this piece of 
legislation are confused as to actually what the debate is truly about. 
If it is about jobs, if it is about the American people, if it is about 
providing energy certainty, and if it is about reducing the carbon 
footprint in this country, then 2842 is a good piece of legislation.
  They say conceptually they embrace it, but they want to put on the 
backs of hardworking Americans more cost and more uncertainty at a time 
when we need to create certainty and when we

[[Page H1188]]

need to be able to have that opportunity to be able to reduce costs.
  Our opponent commented that we see no evidence that projects are 
being delayed. Well, the fact of the matter is, when we had testimony, 
Chris Trees of the Colorado Water District noted that it took well over 
a year for a project to be approved. Many projects were not being 
considered simply because of the regulatory costs.
  When we look at this chart on a projected cost to build a small 
hydropower installation, the actual cost to build the unit is $20,000. 
By the time that we concur with our Democrat colleagues' insistence 
that we expand bureaucracy and have more government, we are going to 
add an additional $50,000 in cost.
  What's the challenge for rural America? It is dollars. We have 
struggling communities of people that need jobs. People need to be able 
to be put back to work. It may, in big cities, not be big money when 
you start to talk about $50,000, but for our small water districts, it 
truly is.
  This is a chance to stand up for the American people. This is a 
chance to be able to create clean energy for this Nation.
  When we looked at examples in terms of what does overregulation by 
the government do, when we went through the NEPA process, no one argued 
as we had photos that my colleague, Mr. Gosar, had shown of constructed 
ditches made by men, were put into place to have the NEPA process, but 
then to duplicate that process, we could look at Bureau of 
Reclamation's process in which it took 5 years for it to find out that 
it even had jurisdiction over the Klamath project C-Drop Canal in order 
to pave the way for conduit hydropower--5 years.
  Join with us in caring about the environment, to make sure that we're 
going to be delivering clean hydropower--not delaying it for 5 years, 
not delaying it for a year, not putting more costs on the backs of the 
American people when they simply can't afford it--and putting people 
back to work. That's the choice we have on this legislation.
  As Chairman Hastings has noted, it's a commonsense piece of 
legislation. It makes sense, and it makes good common sense to vote for 
it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIPTON. I'll certainly yield to my colleague.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Please put that poster back up again. That, I think, real-life 
example demonstrates why America is so fed up with what happens in 
Washington, DC. Here is a project that is affordable at $20,000, and so 
somebody wants to take that opportunity to perhaps make some money--
there's nothing wrong with that in our country--and you find out that 
the cost of regulation is 2\1/2\ times what the project is. Now, what 
certainty does that send to the marketplace that we want to do 
business? That is absolutely incredible.
  And its environmental permitting costs here, in this particular 
example, which, of course, are exemplified by what? NEPA. And this 
amendment would take the waiver of NEPA out of the equation. In other 
words, under the bill that you have authored--correct me if I am 
wrong--that red dot, that red slice there would be dramatically, 
dramatically reduced; is that correct?
  Mr. TIPTON. That is correct.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as the gentlelady has 
pointed out, strikes the NEPA exemption for small hydroelectric 
projects. Perhaps she hasn't been listening to the debate for the last 
hour. The NEPA exemption is the entire point of the bill.
  As our subcommittee heard earlier this year, it's precisely this 
duplicative, costly, time-consuming, and entirely unnecessary process 
that has more than doubled the cost to small hydro projects which 
simply makes them cost-prohibitive. They don't apply for permits 
because they know they don't pencil out once all of the studies are 
factored into their costs. The Bureau of Reclamation doesn't deny 
permits; it simply demands such costly environmental studies as to make 
these projects cost-prohibitive. The bill authorizes these projects so 
they don't have to go through the costly, time-consuming, and pointless 
environmental studies.
  The gentlelady, several times, mentioned the fact that the Bureau of 
Reclamation was moving ahead with three permits in Colorado. So what's 
the problem? Well, let's look at those three permits. One of these 
wasn't conduit hydropower, one was specifically approved by Congress in 
the 1980s, and the third took a full year to get the permitting done on 
an existing canal outlet. Now, if that's what the gentlelady describes 
as success, I think she has just proven our point.
  Let me ask her this: What is the point of requiring expensive and 
time-consuming environmental reviews when all you're doing is putting a 
small generator in an existing Bureau of Reclamation pipe that has 
already undergone extensive environmental reviews?
  FERC already provides for the categorical exemption on non-Federal 
projects. The Bureau's own NEPA manual, updated a decade ago, clearly 
allows categorical exemptions for--and this is from their manual--
``minor construction activities associated with authorized projects 
which merely augment or supplement or are enclosed within existing 
facilities.'' These small hydro generators precisely meet this 
requirement. The problem is the agency ignores its own guidelines. That 
is precisely why this bill is necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, either placing generators in pipelines is 
environmentally damaging or it's not, and anybody with a lick of sense 
already knows the answer to that question, and I would expect them to 
be supporting the bill of the gentleman from Colorado.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the amendment from the 
gentlelady from California.
  In fact, I want to highlight two of the Arizona witnesses who have 
some of the most applicable understanding of this hydropower bill.
  The first person I would like to quote is Mr. Bob Lynch, in which he 
testified:

       We need Congress to streamline the processes both for 
     reclamation facilities and for non-Federal facilities. This 
     companion enterprise will open up the West to a whole new 
     product line of small hydropower facilities that can tap the 
     energy in flowing water that is currently being wasted. If 
     the red tape can be cut down, the cost of installing these 
     units can be amortized. These are existing facilities and 
     will have no impact other than to provide additional clean, 
     renewable hydropower in small quantities all over the Western 
     United States.

  The second person I would like to highlight is Mr. Grant Ward, who 
represents one of these districts in which he testified how the 
permitting costs of $50,000 for every small conduit hydropower unit in 
his area are more expensive than the actual installation of $20,000.
  So here we hear from Mr. Bob Lynch representing the Irrigation and 
Electrical Districts Association in Arizona, someone who has countless 
decades of experience and expertise in these issues, as well as Mr. 
Grant Ward, who experienced this on the ground level, dictating exactly 
their testimony.
  So I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  1530


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

[[Page H1189]]

     SEC. 3. NO NET LOSS OF JOBS.

       Section 2 and the amendments made by section 2 shall not 
     take effect unless the Secretary finds that such section and 
     amendments, if in effect, shall not result in a net loss of 
     jobs.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, our transportation program expires at the 
end of March, and we are still facing high unemployment. Why aren't we 
working on a real jobs bill that will create good infrastructure jobs?
  The GOP has wasted about 427 days since they've been in charge by not 
producing a real jobs agenda, but it's around transportation and 
infrastructure where we have real opportunity. Unfortunately, certain 
people have used creative titles--deceiving titles in some cases--to 
try to distract the public. Their transportation bill is called the 
American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, but it wouldn't promote 
jobs in energy or infrastructure. It would actually cut highway 
investment by $16 billion in 5 years. This would mean a loss of half a 
million jobs nationwide. That's right, the American Energy and 
Infrastructure Jobs Act would cut 500,000 jobs. The bill would cost 
about 11,000 jobs in my home State of Minnesota.
  Today, we're debating the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit 
Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act. Why are we talking about 
small conduit hydropower when we need investment in highways, bridges, 
transit and airports? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not here to run down 
small conduit hydropower. I just think it's too small.
  Also on the floor this week is the so-called Jumpstart Our Business 
Startups Act, JOBS. This is a rehash of access-to-capital bills that 
may be useful--in fact, I may support them--but will barely make a dent 
in our unemployment numbers. The GOP may have creative titles, may have 
some titles that catch attention and sound good; but if you scratch the 
surface just a little bit, there's no jobs agenda even on bills that 
say ``jobs.''
  The American Society of Civil Engineers is a group that knows a 
little bit about infrastructure. This is a group, a collection of 
professionals, who know the issue; and they give our infrastructure 
grade a D--and D don't stand for ``dandy.'' It stands for ``downright 
bad and unfortunate.''
  We have nearly 70,000 bridges across this country--or 11.5 percent of 
all highway bridges--classified as ``structurally deficient,'' meaning 
they require significant maintenance or replacement. There are about 
1,400 structurally deficient bridges in my State of Minnesota, several 
within walking distance of my home. In 2007, my district tragically 
felt the impact of deficient bridges with the collapse of I 35W. We 
lost 13 lives, and 100 people ended up with serious injury in the 
hospital.
  We need a real transportation bill and a real jobs agenda to rebuild 
our infrastructure and to put Americans back to work.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie 
Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for leading this position.
  I rise today to speak about the current extension of the 
transportation bill, which is set to expire at the end of this month. 
I'm frustrated by the lack of action in this Chamber and the lack of 
attention being paid by the majority to the American people who 
desperately need these jobs.
  The current transportation authorization expires at the end of March, 
but we are still facing high unemployment and a weak economy. We need 
the kind of long-term transportation policy that will repair our 
crumbling infrastructure and bring back good-paying construction jobs.
  I have been on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
for 20 years this year; and up until now, the committee has worked in a 
bipartisan fashion and we have produced sound, commonsense legislation. 
But the progress that could have been made has been stymied by partisan 
bickering and bad policy.
  The current transportation bill offered by the majority would cut 
investment in our Nation's highways by almost $16 billion over the next 
5 years. This would mean a loss of over 500,000 jobs nationwide.
  Mr. Chairman, we talk about this being a jobs bill. What is before us 
is a job-killing bill. But the American people are waiting.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would give to the 
Secretary of the Interior the ability literally to unilaterally veto 
this measure if he finds it would result in a loss of jobs.
  Now, let's be clear of what we're talking about here. This is the 
same Secretary of the Interior who came to the Natural Resources 
Committee in 2009 when Federal water diversions in California's Central 
Valley were throwing thousands and thousands of farm workers into 
unemployment. Before the committee, he admitted that he had the 
authority to stop the diversions and stop throwing these thousands of 
hardworking families into poverty, but he chose not to do so because he 
said it would be like admitting failure.
  This is the same administration that blissfully threw thousands of 
gulf war workers into unemployment by declaring a de facto moratorium 
on oil production in the gulf. This is the same administration that's 
blocking energy development in the Arctic tundra. This is the same 
administration that's torpedoed the Keystone pipeline and the thousands 
of jobs it would have created. And now the gentleman from Minnesota 
would give this same official and this same administration the power to 
shut down small hydroelectric facilities that could add thousands of 
megawatts of additional electricity to our energy supplies.
  I would assure the gentleman that the reason for this bill is because 
we fully expect it to produce a quantum leap in demand for small 
generators; and somebody's going to have to build them, and somebody's 
going to have to install them. That means more jobs.
  Now, if the gentleman is worried about jobs being lost in the 
regulatory bureaucracy because they won't have as many businesses to 
harass, I can assure him they have demonstrated over the years a 
tremendous creativity in finding new businesses to harass and new 
reasons to increase their budgets.
  But I say again, I don't believe it would be a good idea to put in 
the hands of this Secretary and this administration yet another tool to 
obstruct energy and job development. Now, high electricity prices might 
not be a problem in Minnesota, but I can assure the gentleman they are 
a serious problem in California; and that's why his amendment is so 
dangerous.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the bill that I'm 
speaking of is called the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
bill.
  The Secretary of Transportation, who has served on this committee, 
has clearly explained what this bill in its present form will do for 
this country. Now, I know that probably no one wants to quote this 
particular Secretary, who has had inside experience as well as outside 
experience. He is very aware because he served on this committee during 
the time we worked in a bipartisan fashion.
  We're talking about highways. And because someone put a lot more 
extracurricular, extraneous kind of stuff in this bill that does not 
relate to these highways, then they're against it. But the progress 
that could have been made was really stymied by this very kind of 
propaganda and bad policy.
  The current transportation bill offered by the majority would cut 
investment in our Nation's highways and kill jobs. We want to create 
jobs and do something about the crumbling infrastructure in this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people are waiting for us to do something. 
We were sent here by our constituents to solve problems, not to create 
them and not to find excuses to face the real reality. So let's get 
back to work and

[[Page H1190]]

produce a transportation bill that will repair our Nation's 
infrastructure and get thousands of Americans back to work--not to try 
to challenge this administration because you don't like the 
administration. We want to see something that's real and something that 
addresses the real problem, and not skirt around with a lot of ideas 
and a lot of propaganda that simply does not relate to this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I find this debate rather 
interesting because the gentlelady from Texas who spoke, of course, did 
not speak on this bill. She spoke on another piece of pending 
legislation that dealt with jobs. That's good.
  That pending piece of legislation, I might add, had two components to 
it. It had the energy component, and it had the transportation 
component which, of course, is pending. We know that expires at the end 
of this month.
  But we did pass the energy component of that bill which creates tens 
of thousands of jobs. And I just want to point out, Mr. Chairman, the 
gentlelady voted against that piece of legislation. Sometimes we hear 
mixed messages here, but I just wanted to set the record straight.
  This bill is another extension of energy production and, of course, 
creating American energy jobs. And with that, I find the gentleman from 
Minnesota's amendment really very interesting, because what he is 
saying by his amendment is, unless the bureaucracy decides, by giving 
all this authority to the Secretary--and by the way, I'm not sure which 
Secretary it is because it's not delineated in the amendment. But 
leaving that aside, he is saying there will be no jobs unless--what? 
The bureaucracy decides there will be jobs. Now, how ludicrous is that?
  But that is precisely where we seem to be today. And I think this is, 
as I mentioned earlier, this is one of the reasons why I think 
Americans are so fed up with what's happening here in D.C. with this 
sort of back and forth.
  Let me repeat, this is infrastructure that is in place. There is 
water running through this infrastructure. All we're trying to do is 
capture that energy, at no cost to the Federal Government, and create 
jobs and lower the cost of energy. There's nothing more simplistic than 
that, Mr. Chairman.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, it's interesting, our colleagues do talk 
about jobs. We want to be able to create jobs, to be able to facilitate 
that opportunity for Americans to be able to go back to work, to be 
able to create clean energy right here in the United States. As my 
colleague was pointing out, a commonsense piece of legislation.
  We're going through existing conduits, what we call in our part of 
the world ditches, to be able to capture that energy, to be able to 
deliver it to allow local decisions to be able to be made.
  But our colleagues seem to want to make sure that we're standing up, 
or they are standing up, for the status quo, and that just means say 
no--say no to clean energy. No, join with us and support clean energy 
and hydroelectric power.
  You're saying no to jobs. Join with us to be able to create jobs 
right here in this country and be able to put our people back to work.
  We have enough red tape. This amendment will simply grow more 
government. And as we saw from testimony in our committee and charts 
that have been shown during this debate, there's no need to put more 
expense on the backs of the American people, who simply cannot afford 
your stand to build more government.
  This is an amendment that deserves to be rejected. I ask for that, 
and ask for a favorable vote on H.R. 2842.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee 
do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McClintock) having assumed the chair, Mr. Chaffetz, Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2842) to 
authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities for hydropower 
development under Federal reclamation law, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________