[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 63 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E800-E801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 H.R. 1495, WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007; VOTE 233: ON THE 
                  MOTION TO RECOMMIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN J. HALL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 19, 2007

  Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, although I am a staunch advocate 
of increasing the use of hydroelectric power to meet America's energy 
needs, I voted against the motion to recommit H.R. 1495 because it does 
not constitute a good-faith effort to meet this important goal.
  Under the guise of supporting renewable energy, the amending language 
contained in the motion to recommit would have directed the Secretary 
to undertake a boundless survey of America's waterways and wherever 
possible to augment existing hydroelectric dams

[[Page E801]]

or build new ones. While supporters of the motion may attempt to 
portray it as advancing ``green'' solutions to our energy challenges, 
the reality is that the language only required economic considerations 
to be taken into account and provided no framework or guidance 
regarding the environmental suitability of potential hydroelectric 
sites or requirements to account for environmental impact mitigation or 
wildlife protection.
  I am strongly supportive of exploring beneficial ways to increase the 
role that hydroelectricity plays in our energy mix, and look forward to 
working with my colleagues on pursuing environmentally responsible 
hydroelectric options such as installing low-head hydroelectric 
turbines in existing small dams. It is extremely important that we 
explore such alternatives, but we must do so in a way that is 
thoughtful, measured, and responsible. The language in the motion to 
recommit could have opened the door to reckless, counterproductive 
hydroelectric projects and so I chose to vote against it.

                          ____________________