[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 47 (Wednesday, April 10, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1878-H1890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL
JOBS ACT
General Leave
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 H.R. 678.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr). Pursuant to House Resolution 140
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. 678.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over
the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1338
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. 678) to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities
for hydropower development under Federal Reclamation law, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Poe 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 such time as
I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small
Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act.
Those of us from the Pacific Northwest know and understand the
importance of hydropower and the significant role it plays in our
economy. In my home State of Washington, hydropower produces 70 percent
of our power, and it helps keep electricity rates low and affordable
for our residents.
{time} 1340
It is one of the cheapest and cleanest forms of electricity, and
helps make other intermittent sources of renewable energy, like wind
and solar, possible.
Yet too often, as is frequently the case with energy projects on
Federal lands, the development of new hydropower gets caught up in
bureaucratic red tape and regulations.
Today's bill, sponsored by our colleague from Colorado, Mr. Tipton,
would cut through that red tape to expand the development of small
conduit hydropower. Specifically, it clears up Federal agency confusion
by directly authorizing hydropower development at almost 47,000 miles
of Bureau of Reclamation canals. It also streamlines the regulatory
process for developing small canal and pipeline hydropower projects on
existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities.
[[Page H1879]]
Mr. Chairman, I want to stress the point that these new projects will
only be at existing facilities. These existing man-made facilities have
already gone through extensive environmental review when they were
initially built. Requiring duplicative reviews on existing facilities
only imposes unnecessary delays and, thus, administrative costs.
I realize that the Bureau of Reclamation has come up with its own
version of streamlining since we considered this bill in the last
Congress, but it's only a theoretical version of streamlining since it
has never been used in the 6 months after it was created. This bill
simply streamlines the regulatory and administrative process so that
water users can be free to develop hydropower at the Federal canals
they already operate and maintain.
This bill will help generate thousands of megawatts of clean, cheap,
abundant hydropower and, thus, will bring in new revenue to the Federal
Government and, more importantly, Mr. Chairman, create new American
jobs. Best of all, we can do this at no cost to the American taxpayer.
This is exactly the type of commonsense proposal that Republicans
support as part of the all-of-the-above energy plan. Hydropower must be
part of the solution. Families and small businesses rely on access to
affordable electricity, and this bill is a simple way to lower prices
by expanding production on one of the best forms of clean, renewable
energy.
Mr. Chairman, nearly identical legislation passed the House last
Congress with bipartisan support. I hope the House will once again do
so today, and that the Senate will take action on this job-creating
energy bill.
I want to thank particularly members of the Natural Resources
Committee Mr. Tipton of Colorado, Mr. Gosar of Arizona, and Mr. Costa
of California for their tremendous work on this bill and for being
strong champions of small-scale hydropower production.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the general premise of this bill
but oppose the legislation as is due to the inclusion of the NEPA
waiver.
Today we are debating H.R. 678, a bill that should be
noncontroversial. In fact, it should have already been enacted into
law. We all agree that adding small conduit hydropower projects is a
great idea--no, it's really a wonderful idea--and H.R. 678 could have
easily been passed through the House with overwhelming bipartisan
support. But, unfortunately, my esteemed colleagues on the other side
have chosen to turn this noncontroversial bill into a partisan fight
over ideology by waiving compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act, NEPA, for Federal conduit projects.
As my colleague from Washington indicated, it means jobs. It means
the addition of clean energy. It means all of those things, but to the
exclusion of NEPA. As the gentleman mentioned, H.R. 678 would amend the
Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and, thus, would facilitate and expand
the private development of small conduit hydropower at the Bureau of
Reclamation facilities. The legislation seeks to accomplish several
goals, the most important of which is authorizing reclamation to
develop and increase power at most of those facilities.
H.R. 678 also includes a provision that waives NEPA for all conduit
projects generating less than 5 megawatts. The bill waives NEPA, which
is on page 4, lines 14 to 18, even though the Bureau of Reclamation has
implemented a categorical exclusion on their own accord to apply to
small conduit projects. You may call it theoretical, but it has only
been there 6 months, and it takes government a long time to get the
word out to those parties. The waiver of NEPA in this bill is
unnecessary, since Reclamation has already implemented this guidance
through this categorical exclusion. The legislation seeks to solve a
NEPA problem that does not exist. Unfortunately, some Members on the
other side of the aisle have characterized the waiver of NEPA as ``the
main purpose of this legislation.''
The waiver in this bill is the exact same waiver that Republicans put
into the nearly identical bill last Congress. Just like the last time,
the Senate will not pass it, and the bill will again expire in the
Senate. This is totally unnecessary. This is not what anyone on this
side of the aisle wants to see happen, and we would support the bill
without the NEPA waiver.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and ask my colleagues to do
the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman
of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation on the Natural
Resources Committee.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the so-called streamlining that the Bureau has pledged
to do and has done has produced no new projects for reasons that were
made very clear to our Subcommittee on Water and Power by numerous
witnesses. NEPA is at the heart of the problem. As the chairman said,
the Bureau of Reclamation operates 47,000 miles of pipelines and canals
that have already undergone extensive environmental review. By
installing small generators in the existing pipelines, we could add the
equivalent generating capacity of major hydroelectric dams, meaning
millions of dollars of new revenue to the government, millions of watts
of new, clean, cheap electricity, and all the jobs these projects would
produce.
The gentlelady has said that she supports the objective and is
willing to do everything that she can to help except by getting
government out of the way. The Federal bureaucracy has made it cost
prohibitive for people to install these small generators in these
existing canals and pipelines. Rather, they force them to conduct
crushingly expensive environmental reviews, navigate time-consuming
bureaucratic mazes, pay exorbitant administrative fees, and risk the
uncertainties of endless internal review and external litigation. These
bureaucratic obstacles often cost more than the projects themselves and
turn sensible, economic electricity projects into cost-prohibitive
farces.
As proposed to be amended, this bill requires the Bureau to
categorically exclude the installation of these small, hydroelectric
generators in existing facilities that have already undergone
environmental review. It designates the central office within the
Bureau to provide uniform guidance on processing applications. It
establishes a sensible and streamlined process to determine development
rights. And it ensures that installation of hydrogenerators will not
disrupt existing water operations.
Mr. Chairman, think about the implications just to farming as one
example. Some irrigation districts are forced to use diesel generators
to pump water to their fields. You put hydroelectric generators in
existing canals and pipes, and they become virtually self-sustaining,
while reducing reliance on other sources of electricity that do produce
air emissions.
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. Even FERC, a bastion of regulatory excess, agrees
that these studies are unnecessary when conducted on similar non-
Federal facilities.
I believe this bill is a model for the future. I hope that similar
regulatory reforms will soon be extended to other Federal and non-
Federal facilities.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member,
Congresswoman Napolitano, for her efforts on this legislation, Chairman
Doc Hastings, as well as the chair of the subcommittee, Tom McClintock,
and the author of this measure, Congressman Tipton, for trying to bring
folks together.
{time} 1350
Mr. Chairman, people from every walk of life are looking to Congress
today to see if we can come together to deal with any of our problems,
whether they be big, small, or in between. I rise today to support
legislation, I think, that does that. This isn't the biggest
[[Page H1880]]
legislation we'll deal with this year, nor is it the smallest; but it's
something that will help America's energy policy.
Our bipartisan bill would amend the Reclamation Act, as has been
stated, of 1939, to create a permanent process for how local irrigation
districts and water agencies develop this very valuable, renewable,
carbon-free energy at our reclamation facilities. And as we're putting
together an energy policy that uses all-of-the-above, this becomes an
important part.
H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower
Development and Rural Jobs Act, is a bipartisan bill that puts existing
resources and knowledge we already have to expand one of the most
important tools in our Nation's energy toolbox. Let me repeat that: one
of the most important tools in our Nation's energy toolbox.
Hydropower is the single largest source of clean, sustainable energy
and has been powering our country for over 100 years throughout the
land. When most people think about hydropower, of course, they think
about the big projects, Hoover Dam and other modern engineering
marvels.
However, the beauty of this hydropower legislation is it can also be
used on much smaller scaled, reliable projects in which we already have
the infrastructure in place. Every day, water flows thousands of miles
through canals, pipes and ditches across this country. I know--I happen
to represent one of those places, the great San Joaquin Valley, in
which we have a vast network of dams and reservoirs and canals that
provide that water for those who most need it, our cities and our
farms.
We have an old saying: where water flows, food grows. Every day we
miss valuable opportunities to utilize this resource's full potential.
This bill changes that.
This water could easily be harnessed to provide low-cost, renewable
energy to American families and help add to the increment of energy
that we need in this country.
Currently, small conduit hydropower is largely untapped and
underutilized; and it's also, obviously, a clean-energy opportunity.
The greatest barrier to unleashing the next generation of hydropower is
not technological, because we have made great progress on the
technological side. Unfortunately, it's regulatory.
Currently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, otherwise known
as FERC, maintains jurisdiction over small projects like those that I
am talking about.
Serving on the Natural Resources Committee, I've heard from folks
across the country say that these regulations are too costly and too
difficult to navigate. Obtaining an exception from FERC's permitting
rules can take up to 6 months and cost nearly $50,000 for a local water
district to pursue. That's unnecessary, and it's also a waste of
valuable resources.
Our bipartisan bill, again, would amend the Reclamation Act of 1939
to create a permanent process for how local irrigation districts and
water agencies develop this very valuable, renewable, carbon-free
resource for reclamation facilities.
By streamlining the process, the irrigation districts would be
empowered to develop small conduit hydropower at no cost to the
taxpayers. These projects typically are 5 megawatts and less.
Harnessing the power of water already flowing through reclamation
facilities would stimulate rural economies, reduce pumping costs for
farmers who face those pumping costs every year.
I am proud to stand with my colleagues who are supporting this
legislation. I want to thank Congressman Tipton for this effort,
because it helps us take advantage of existing facilities that are
already in place to provide additional resource of power where we need
it.
If we want to strengthen our energy portfolio, let's start with the
low-hanging fruit. This is low-hanging fruit.
Let me just give you some numbers. In California there are 20 small
hydro projects, should this legislation become law, that would be
available to this process. Let me underline that: 20 projects in
California that would qualify.
In the Nation, the Bureau of Reclamation has determined that there
are 373 projects throughout the country that potentially would qualify
should this legislation become law.
The bill does just that. I urge your support for H.R. 678.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of
this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. TIPTON. I thank Chairman Hastings for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 678 is a commonsense piece of legislation to
foster clean, renewable energy development, create rural jobs in
America, and to do so without taxpayer cost, while returning revenues
to the U.S. Treasury and, by all measures, should be considered low-
hanging fruit, as our fellow Member has just noted, for congressional
action.
There's been a lot of discussion on both sides of the aisle about the
need to be able to pursue an all-of-the-above strategy. Hydropower, as
the cleanest and most abundant natural energy source, should be at the
forefront of any comprehensive natural energy policy.
Increased conduit hydropower serves a number of purposes. It produces
renewable and emissions-free energy that can be used to pump water or
sell electricity into the grid; it can generate revenue for the
irrigation district to be able to help pay for aging infrastructure
costs and facilitate modernization; and it can create local jobs and
generate revenue to the Federal Government.
It's as simple as this poster demonstrates, as easy as putting a
portable generator into moving canal water.
Many irrigation districts and electrical utilities seek to develop
hydropower on Bureau of Reclamation pipes, ditches and canals; but
regulatory uncertainty and the threat of unnecessary bureaucratic
requirements stand in the way.
This legislation seeks to remove duplicative environmental analysis
where doing so will considerably reduce costs for hydropower
developers, while retaining the analysis necessary to protect valuable
natural resources.
While the Bureau of Reclamation has recently begun to inventory
facilities suitable for small conduit hydropower generation and develop
directives and standards to help promote that end, for far too long,
duplicative review for small hydropower projects on existing, manmade
facilities rendered these projects financially unfeasible, and
significant uncertainty still remains.
The generating units covered by H.R. 678 would be installed on
entirely manmade waterways which have already received a full
environmental review when they were built or rehabilitated. Any
transmission associated with these projects that would result from the
passage of this bill must still undergo full environmental review where
they impact the environment. To require a lengthy review for dropping a
small generator into a pipe simply defies logic, and we cannot pursue
an all-of-the-above energy strategy if we continue business as usual.
In addition to creating regulatory certainty and removing duplicative
processes, this legislation authorizes power development at the
agency's conduits to clear up multi-Federal agency confusion and
further reduces the regulatory costs associated with hydropower
development. This provision of the bill will provide the necessary
statutory authority to be able to reduce litigation that the agency is
sure to seek under the current framework which relies on broad
authorities that do not specifically authorize hydropower development.
This legislation ensures the continued use of the Bureau facilities,
primarily for water supply and irrigation, and protects the interests
of those maintaining and operating these facilities by offering them
the first right of refusal to take advantage of small conduit energy
development projects.
Non-Federal operators know the details of the facilities best and are
locally invested. As a result, it's only logical to offer them the
first opportunity to develop this energy on facilities that they
maintain.
Additionally, those irrigation districts with preexisting
arrangements with the Bureau or the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission for water delivery and hydropower development will not be
disturbed by this bill.
[[Page H1881]]
I'm proud to have the support of the Family Farm Alliance, the
National Water Resources Association, the American Public Power
Association, and the National Hydropower Association, among others.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to be able to make this public law and to start putting rural
America back to work and developing clean, renewable energy.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague, except some
of those projects were built in 1902 and through the 1970s. I think we
do need NEPA protection.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
{time} 1400
Mr. SWALWELL of California. I would like to thank the ranking member
for yielding me time.
Madam Chair, I rise to object today to the consideration of this bill
and rather propose that we stand in this House and we consider Mr.
Hoyer's Make It In America package. We can come together and focus on
real solutions that will get our economy moving again, and we should
take up Mr. Hoyer's Make It In America package because it will
strengthen our economy and create non-outsourceable jobs at home, here
in America. The Make It In America package includes bills like mine,
H.R. 1022, the Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act
of 2013 that will help secure America's place as a leader in science
and technology with a 21st century workforce.
What are rare Earth elements? Well, these are 17 chemical elements--
elements that, prior to coming to Congress and learning about how they
affect our economy, I couldn't point out at pistol point--that are very
critical to making cell phones, to making our electric cars, and also
to making our antimissile systems. Despite the name, they are very
abundant in our country and they can be extracted in an environmentally
safe manner.
So what's the problem? Well, today, 97 percent of rare Earth elements
are extracted and exported from China. Eighty percent of rare Earth
magnets and almost 100 percent of related metal production are coming
from China. In 2010, China temporarily cut off rare Earth supplies to
Japan, the European Union, and the United States, highlighting the
potential consequences to the United States for relying so heavily upon
China for rare Earth production that is so crucial and critical to what
we can create here in America.
My district includes northern Silicon Valley, home of silicon chip
processing, home of the technology boom, home of the Internet, and also
home of many advanced manufacturing production sites. H.R. 1022, the
Securing Energy Critical Elements in American Jobs Act of 2013 aims to
help reduce our dependence on China for these critical elements and
instead make it here in America. But in order for us to do this, we
need to invest in developing our technical workforce here at home.
Currently, the United States lacks the necessary technical expertise
to ensure a reliable supply of energy critical elements. My bill, H.R.
1022, enlists the talents of our university students and encourages
them to develop the technical expertise necessary to secure America's
access to these elements. We need to ensure that the best and brightest
minds in our area and our country have the tools and support they need
to support America's access to energy critical elements. H.R. 1022 will
promote collaboration and research opportunities in the fields of
energy-critical elements for students at higher institutions, and
coordination of Federal agencies to promote a stable supply of energy-
critical elements.
We also have in my congressional district what's called the ``Tri-
Valley,'' or, as I like to call it, the ``I Valley,'' or the
``Innovation Valley.'' This area also would rely upon energy-critical
elements. And as the ranking member said, we have an opportunity today
to work in a bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, I do not see us doing
that. So I would conclude by asking that we come together.
Also, in my bill there's a loan guarantee for companies with new
processing and refining technologies. The Securing Energy Critical
Elements and American Jobs Act of 2013 will help to spur private
investment in companies on the forefront of this critical field. It's
very important that we have the Federal Government at the very
inception, in the beginning, providing the research and Federal
funding. But most important is to get it out into private industry. And
that's what this bill calls upon.
So, again, I urge my colleagues to stop wasting time with partisan
bills like this today. Instead, let's come together to train and secure
a 21st century workforce. Let's harness our own resources. Let's Make
It In America, and we can help all Americans make it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, before I yield time to
the gentlelady from Wyoming, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I find the gentleman's argument on the other side rather striking
because he's talking about American-made jobs and another piece of
legislation not associated with this. And I would just point out, what
could be more American-made jobs than putting hydropower facilities on
American soil? That creates jobs. That's what this bill is all about.
And the second point, the gentleman mentioned the rare Earth issue
that we have. Last Congress, we passed legislation here so we could
utilize the known rare Earth supplies we have in this country, and it
was the other body, controlled by the gentleman's own party, that
didn't act on it. And he sounds like it is a big, big issue now. I
suspect we may have, Madam Chairman, that legislation again in front of
us, and I would hope that we could elicit the gentleman's support when
that bill comes to the floor.
With that, Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a valuable member of the
Natural Resources Committee.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I rise in support of H.R. 678, of which I'm an original
cosponsor, and I want to thank Representative Tipton, Chairman
McClintock, and Chairman Hastings for their hard work on this bill,
which unlocks significant hydropower development potential in my home
State of Wyoming.
Congress and the Bureau of Reclamation have over the years created
hundreds of canals and pipelines to serve water uses in the West. Most
of these conduits were never envisioned as power sources because the
technology wasn't there or it wasn't yet cost-effective. But technology
has changed, and now it's feasible to harness and channel the energy
byproduct of these water flows. The Bureau of Reclamation has
identified 373 conduits in the West with hydropower potential. Wyoming
leads the States with 121 of these sites and is second only to Colorado
in terms of the potential energy output. In Wyoming alone, the
estimated potential is 82 million kilowatt hours annually from a clean,
renewable energy source. Unleashing this potential, while still
protecting the environment and end water users, is what this bill is
all about.
First, H.R. 678 eliminates bureaucratic confusion by expressly
authorizing the Bureau to oversee hydropower development in its
conduits.
Second, it directs the Bureau of Reclamation to exempt small
hydropower projects from duplicative environmental paperwork
requirements. We're talking about placing small power generators in
canals and ditches where the ground has already been disturbed. Fences
have gone up. Environmental analysis has been conducted, sometimes
multiple times because of the Bureau's contract renewals with some
water users. Requiring duplicative environmental analysis on
preexisting conduits makes no sense, provides no environmental benefit,
and imposes more costs and bureaucratic uncertainty on potential
developers.
Third, the bill protects water supply and delivery as the primary and
fundamental priority for these conduits, whose vital mission will not
be disrupted.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, jobs-creating bill.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentlewoman from
California has 18 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington
has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
[[Page H1882]]
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cardenas).
Mr. CARDENAS. I thank the gentlewoman for giving me the opportunity
to speak on this matter.
H.R. 678 could easily be a bipartisan, noncontroversial bill. But
Republicans insist on including an unnecessary provision to waive
environmental review. It sets the wrong precedent. Nearly 100 days have
passed since the 113th Congress has been sworn in, and not one bill has
been brought to the floor that would have a measurable effect of
reinvigorating our manufacturing sector. In fact, quite the opposite
has happened.
Democrats have announced the Make It In America initiative to focus
on four areas to help our economy grow. In order to strengthen the
economy, this Congress must: adopt and pursue a comprehensive
manufacturing strategy; promote the export of U.S. goods; encourage
innovation; and train a 21st century workforce. In addition to these
four core components, we must work together to address the equally
important task of getting our small business owners access to capital
they so desperately need. Without capital, our businesses are stagnant,
cannot invest in their own growth, and will not hire that unemployed
person who has been searching for a job for months.
We must do more to get the financial institutions back to lending in
this country. Now it's up to Republicans and Democrats to work together
to enact and pass Make It In America legislation and help secure
America as the world leader when it comes to job creation and when it
comes to innovation. When it comes to hydropower, it's very important
for us to understand yes, we need more hydropower, yes, we need
innovation, yes, we need to make sure the small and large hydropower
actually moves forward. But doing it at the expense of the environment
by waiving environmental review is just not the right way to do it.
{time} 1410
Many people in these Chambers speak constantly of making sure that we
don't put things on the backs of our children and our grandchildren.
Every time we waive environmental review, every time that we don't do
things carefully, we move in a direction where it takes sometimes a
year or 2 or 3 to go in the wrong direction, it takes decades for us to
correct those environmental problems.
So environmental review should be part of the process and, yes, it
should be streamlined and, yes, we need to make sure that we do things
in a fashion that does put people back to work, but we have to do it
carefully and responsibly.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), another valuable
member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Chairman Hastings.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 678, the Bureau of
Reclamation and Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act
of 2013. This legislation was one of Representative Tipton's and my top
priorities in the Natural Resources Committee last Congress, so I am
pleased to join him again as an original cosponsor and appreciate that
the House is taking up the legislation so quickly in the 113th
Congress.
Our country is failing to fully tap its hydroelectric power
generation potential. The Federal Government owns over 47,000 miles of
canals, laterals, drains, pipeline and tunnels throughout the West that
are perfectly suitable for hydropower production, but hardworking
irrigators and power providers in our districts, already operating and
maintaining this infrastructure on behalf of the Federal Government,
cannot install hydropower generators because government regulations and
bureaucratic confusion are making it cost prohibitive.
H.R. 678 will clear away these bureaucratic obstacles that stand
between our Nation and thousands of megawatts of clean, cheap,
abundant, and reliable hydroelectricity. The resulting development will
create jobs in rural communities hit hardest by the recession, increase
our country's renewable energy portfolio, and even generate revenue for
the Federal Treasury.
The Members of this body opposing this legislation claim it could
cause harm to the environment. To be clear, this bill only allows for
development on existing irrigation canals and ditch systems, not free-
flowing rivers and streams. These conduits have been in place for
years, do not contain any endangered wildlife or fish, and were subject
to environmental analysis at the time of construction or
rehabilitation.
On the poster to my left is a clear example of what we are talking
about. Folks, it's concrete. It's been sitting here with running water.
I don't see the need and I hope you don't see the need for a NEPA
environmental assessment. This canal is in the western part of my
congressional district. We have miles of this type of infrastructure
throughout the State, including the Central Arizona Project. It
provides my constituents with the water necessary to live in the desert
and even grow a good portion of this Nation's produce.
The experts on the ground say we are sitting on a hydropower gold
mine waiting for the needed clarifications and streamlining that will
cut costs and make this program more attractive. There are over 26
locations just like this one in my State alone--mostly in Yuma, Pinal,
and western Maricopa Counties--that are suitable for this development.
The Agri-Business Council of Arizona believes its members could produce
enough low-cost clean energy to power nearly 5,000 homes simply by
installing these small hydropower generators. That is a huge economic
impact for the small rural communities these irrigators serve. They
would provide a real economic boost and lower energy costs.
There are many solutions to our Nation's energy crisis, but
hydropower is clearly part of our all-of-the-above plan. It already
accounts for about 75 percent of this country's total renewable
electricity generation, and we haven't even begun yet.
Early this Congress, the House unanimously passed the Hydropower
Regulatory Efficiency Act, which promotes development on privately
owned infrastructure. We should do the same today on Congressman
Tipton's and my legislation that does the same for publicly owned
infrastructure.
Congress would be doing the American people an injustice if we didn't
move swiftly on this bill. Hydropower must be an integral component of
the long-term all-of-the-above energy strategy in Arizona and for our
Nation, and this bill will allow rural western communities to play a
major role in that future. I will continue to work with Congressman
Tipton to ensure that this bill not only passes the House this year but
gets through the Senate and is sent to the President's desk for his
signature. Folks, it is that simple: commonsense utilization of
infrastructure we already have.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chairman, I am glad that there are some visual
effects here. It is important. But I don't know how all the canal and
for the release, were there any levee issues. So it is important to
have a NEPA review.
I would now like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman
from California, Congressman Takano.
Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentlelady from my own home State of
California for yielding time.
Madam Chair, this bill is something that Democrats could support if
proper environmental review were not made a problem. I really believe
this Congress needs to get back to getting serious about discussing how
we're going to put our country back to work.
The national unemployment rate is 7.6 percent, and in my own district
it's nearly 11 percent. The Congress should be focused on putting
Americans back to work. Democrats have a plan. It's called Make It In
America. This plan, put together by Mr. Hoyer from Maryland, addresses
the most pressing crisis that our Nation faces, the jobs crisis, and it
will put Americans back to work. It has four main points:
Number one, adopt and pursue a national manufacturing strategy;
Number two, promote the export of American goods;
Number three, encourage manufacturers to bring jobs and innovation
back to America;
Number four, train and secure a 21st century workforce.
We have the tools at our disposal to do these things.
[[Page H1883]]
The legislation that I have introduced that is a part of the Make It
In America plan is called the Jobs Skills for America's Students Act.
It encourages partnerships between employers and educational
institutions. Employers who participate are able to receive a $2,000
tax credit per student participating in a qualified technical training
and skills program, with a total credit amount cap of $10,000 per year.
Many of America's fastest growing industries, industries that will
benefit from the Make It In America plan, like advanced manufacturing
and clean energy, require a highly skilled workforce. These industries
struggle to find workers who possess the technical training that they
require. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that
600,000 manufacturing jobs remain unfilled due to a lack of qualified
candidates. Just today, we learned from the Department of Labor that
there are 3.9 million job openings in America, the most in almost 5
years. Many of these jobs are unfilled because of the lack of training.
The Job Skills for America's Students Act partners key industries
with community colleges and other programs to offer students the
opportunity to obtain the training they need to thrive in the field of
their choice. To grow our middle class and create a workforce for the
future, we must close the skills gap and we must make training
affordable and effective.
I urge my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats to pass each
piece of the Make It In America legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).
Mr. DAINES. Chairman Hastings, thanks to you and to Mr. Tipton for
the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 678 today. This bill
reflects an issue that is of true importance to my home State of
Montana.
You know, when most people think of our rivers and waterways in
Montana, they think of celebrities like Brad Pitt standing in the
Little Blackfoot River casting for trout in the movie ``A River Runs
Through It.''
Back in Montana, we rely on our rivers and our natural resources as
an important part of our way of life. However, I'm here today to focus
on a very significant benefit of our waterways, and that's hydropower.
Our waterways help power our homes, they irrigate our farms and
ranches, and they water our livestock. In Montana, about a third of our
energy comes from hydropower, generating 1,100 megawatts per year. To
put this in perspective, 1 megawatt will power nearly 600 homes. Six of
Montana's 10 largest generating plants run on hydroelectric power. But
we're not here to talk about streams and rivers; we're here to talk
about man-made canals and manmade waterways.
The Bureau of Reclamation has constructed 32 such projects in
Montana, and with the improved ability to harness the energy of moving
water in conduits, the Rural Jobs Act would allow each of these
projects to generate more than 26 million kilowatts per hour of power.
There is no reason red tape should tie up that much alternative energy
potential.
This bill will help lower energy costs, create Montana jobs, and
provide our Nation with a sustainable, renewable source of energy. This
is common sense. I believe that H.R. 678, the Rural Jobs Act, is
important for our country, and I strongly support its passage.
{time} 1420
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), another
member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chairman, once in awhile a bill comes through that even makes
great sense in Washington, D.C., and this is a really commonsense
measure. I live on a farm in northern California where I'm surrounded
by canals and ditches and water moving all about in my daily life in
producing rice, and so there's all these opportunities we would have on
installations like that. But we're talking today about Bureau
installations to put renewable power in place that, according to this
chart here, would affect many, many States with many installations and
provide many American jobs.
The opportunities of this bill, just putting the bureaucracy and the
red tape aside, for a commonsense measure to take advantage of an
opportunity to do something that, on the heels of March Madness here,
really, installations would be no harm, no foul. These facilities
already exist. It would be easy to put in place. If we could put aside
the red tape of NEPA requirements, it would be unnecessary.
As I drive up and down my canals and my ditches, again, no harm, no
foul here. We're looking at an easy installation that would be a very
valuable thing for, where I come from in California, a renewable energy
portfolio, which is 33 percent kicking in. It's pretty hard to find
renewable energy, especially when most of those sources are required to
be solar or wind.
Hydropower is a very important component in my part of the State
here. We have so much water that we can take advantage of to produce,
why aren't we doing it in the commonsense areas?
H.R. 678--and I commend the chairman and Mr. Tipton for bringing this
bill forward. This is, again, something that's going to be very
positive for rural America, for our renewable energy portfolio, which
is affecting, I think, a lot of the country these days, because
renewable energy in most cases is very expensive. So the same people
that are saying we can't do this without NEPA, the same people that are
saying we can't have fracturing, which is bringing very cost-effective
electricity to many, many Americans now, the same people that want to
remove hydroelectric dams in my part of the district in northern
California are now wanting to oppose a commonsense measure like this.
Sometimes I just don't get it, but this one here is really an
opportunity to move forward with opportunity for our rural States, for
rural areas to produce these projects with American know-how and more
American jobs. We hear a lot about that here today. Let's put Americans
to work with commonsense, reachable measures that are environmentally
sound and certainly good for our economy.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, may I inquire how many minutes we have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 12 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. May I inquire of my colleague how many other
speakers he has?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close general debate if
the gentlelady is prepared to close.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chair, as I've said before, this is a good bill with one bad
provision in it, and that is the NEPA waiver that is not needed. It is
not good environmental policy, and it is not good energy policy.
NEPA is not just red tape. It is a chance for the Federal Government
to consider alternatives, to listen to not only the opponent, but get
input from everybody impacted and to consider any possible impacts to
the area.
At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to fit the one
flaw in this bill. I hope my amendment is adopted and we'll send this
to the Senate for passage.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
This debate has been rather interesting, because it sounds like on
the floor there is widespread support for the concept of this bill. And
why shouldn't there be? After all, there are 47,000 miles of canals and
ditches that could be utilized for energy production.
There seems to be one problem, and that problem revolves around NEPA,
the National Environmental Policy Act, which was put in place, by the
way, in 1969. I'm not going do say there's a direct correlation between
NEPA and the lack of Bureau of Reclamation projects, but it is very
interesting that most of the great projects that were built in the West
were built prior to NEPA.
[[Page H1884]]
There were environmental statutes on the book, Madam Chairwoman, back
then, and they are all satisfied. I happen to live in central
Washington. There are two great projects in central Washington--the
Columbia Basin Project and the Yakima River Project; in total, probably
over a million acres of irrigated land.
Here is the truism, Madam Chairwoman. What we are talking about are
our facilities where water is running through them, water is running
downhill. We all know that water running downhill creates a certain
amount of energy. All we want to do is capture that energy. With the
prior chart that the gentleman from California put up, most of the
States that will benefit by this are from the West. That means that we
can make the desert bloom even more in the West if we utilize these
facilities.
Finally, I just want to make one other observation. My good friend
from California was saying that, okay, this is like a bill we had last
year. We passed it; the Senate didn't do anything. Well, I would just
remind the gentlelady, and she should know this, and I know she does,
we are two distinct bodies, the House and the Senate. If they have a
different view, for goodness sake, pass something. If it's different
than our view, then we'll figure out how to come together. But to
simply say, this is a good piece of legislation but we don't like NEPA,
therefore, don't pass it because the Senate won't take it up, is not
doing our job.
Madam Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. There are some
amendments that will be following. We can get into more detail on
those. But I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R.
678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and
Rural Jobs Act, of which I am a cosponsor, and I want to thank Mr.
Tipton for his efforts.
Expanding access to clean, affordable, reliable energy is one
challenge facing our Nation today. And while visionaries are looking
for solutions, outdated bureaucracy is stifling innovation.
Though its environmental impacts are negligible, small hydropower
development remains a financial challenge.
By exempting small hydropower from NEPA requirements, this bill
substantially reduces administrative costs and could help stimulate the
economy of rural America at no cost to taxpayers.
Let me be clear, Mr. Chair, this bill, like hydropower legislation I
introduced last Congress, is limited in scope.
We're not talking about waiving environmental regulations for large,
new infrastructure projects; we're talking about streamlining the
process of developing clean, renewable energy on existing conduits.
According to a Bureau of Reclamation's March 2012 report on conduit
hydropower development, more than 30 irrigation sites in my home State
of Nebraska contain more than 5,000 kilowatts of potential hydropower
development.
This bill empowers local irrigation districts to produce emissions-
free energy which could be used by producers or sold to help pay for
aging infrastructure costs.
There are no government mandates and no hidden costs, Mr. Chair.
Sustainable, affordable energy is critical to growing our economy
and this is commonsense policymaking.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule and is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 678
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''.
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 the following:
``(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 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, and shall be on such terms and conditions
as in the judgment of the Secretary in consultation with the
appropriate irrigation district or water users association,
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, multicounty water
conservation 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) Small conduit hydropower.--The term `small conduit
hydropower' means a facility capable of producing 5 megawatts
or less of electric capacity.''.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those received for printing in the portion of the Congressional Record
designated for that purpose dated at least 1 day before the day of
consideration of the amendment and pro forma amendments for the purpose
of debate.
Each amendment so received may be offered only by the Member who
submitted it for printing or a designee and shall be considered as read
if printed.
Are there any amendments to the bill?
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Tipton
Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, strike lines 14 through 18, and insert the
following:
``(3) The Bureau of Reclamation shall apply its categorical
exclusion process under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to small conduit hydropower
development under this subsection, excluding siting of
associated transmission facilities on Federal lands.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page H1885]]
Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairwoman, I offer this amendment in response to
the concerns of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and at the
request of the broad range of irrigation districts, water conservation
and conservancy districts, and public utilities that are supporting
this bill and this commonsense amendment. I'm pleased to have the
support of my Democratic colleague Jim Costa on this effort and the
support of the National Hydropower Association, the Family Farm
Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, and the American
Public Power Association.
This amendment removes the NEPA waiver in the bill and instead
codifies the application of the Bureau of Reclamation's categorical
exclusion process under the National Environmental Policy Act for small
hydropower projects covered by this bill.
This alternative provision would still ensure streamlining the
approval process for clean renewable energy and help provide certainty
for investors and job creators, while providing flexibility to the
Bureau to adjust to changing circumstances moving forward. By advancing
these projects under the Bureau's categorical exclusion process, we
ensure that all of the elements in that process are retained, including
agency discretion for examining extraordinary circumstances. In
addition, the amendment specifically mentions codifying the categorical
exclusion process for small conduit hydropower.
This is an approach that is supported by Trout Unlimited in its March
19, 2013 letter, which states:
Congress should direct BOR to create a categorical
exclusion for small conduit hydropower.
That's exactly what this amendment does.
The use of a categorical exclusion for small conduit hydropower
development can mean the difference between private investment in a
public good with a multitude of benefits, and unreasonable financial
costs and lengthy delays that lead to untapped potential.
My hope is that this amendment, which is broadly supported by the
diverse range of groups invested in the bill who are committed to
ensuring continued environmental protection, will assuage any
reservations about this effort to promote clean renewable energy and
allow us to be able to move forward united in our support.
{time} 1430
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIPTON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment. I think it adds a great deal to all the work that you and
your bipartisan cosponsors had put into this, and I support the
amendment.
Mr. TIPTON. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his
comments.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to Tipton
amendment No. 3 for the Congressional Record.
We are glad to see the author of the legislation recognizes that in
developing conduit hydropower projects, NEPA is not the problem and
that the flat NEPA waiver included in the base bill is not good policy.
We also welcome the apparent realization that insisting on an
unwarranted and unwise NEPA waiver has been the anchor that has held
this bill back and prohibited this largely noncontroversial measure
from becoming law.
But to be clear, this amendment only tweaks language that should be
removed from the bill entirely. The Tipton amendment circles around the
edge of the problem while my amendment, which I'll offer in a few
minutes, solves the problem by removing the waiver completely so we can
move forward and support the bill.
Better yet, if the waiver is removed, there is no need for the
artificially low cap on the size of these projects contained in the
base bill, which is why my amendment will increase the cap from 5 to 15
megawatts. The Tipton amendment does nothing to raise the cap on these
projects.
The Tipton amendment is a significant step in the right direction for
the bill's sponsor, and we will not oppose it and will work with the
sponsor and Senate to perfect the language. However, my amendment,
which we'll see momentarily, is better energy policy and better
environmental policy. The amendment is a start, this particular
amendment, but I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to
really fix this legislation.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTA. Madam Chair, the legislative process is a two way street.
It's about listening and incorporating the concerns of our colleagues
to improve a bill. This amendment does just that.
Environmental review is important, but it needs to be an appropriate
level of review for the project involved. On these types of projects,
there isn't much chance of damage, so there shouldn't be much cost
involved for review.
Reclamation recognizes this and has made great strides in easing the
way for small hydro development on the agency's projects. However,
potential legal conflicts have prevented them from fully implementing
this process.
This amendment would bridge the legal gap and clarify questions that
have kept the Bureau from moving forward. Specifically, the amendment
would codify the steps Reclamation is already taking to ease the way
for responsible small conduit hydropower development while also
resolving potential litigation concerns.
This is a commonsense amendment that has been endorsed by American
Rivers, Trout Unlimited, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water
Resources Association, and the National Hydropower Association.
I urge you to support this amendment and support the underlying bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I rise to offer the Napolitano
amendment identified as amendment No. 1 in the Congressional Record.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, strike lines 14 through 18 (and redesignate
subsequent provisions accordingly).
Page 7, line 13, strike ``5'' and insert ``15''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, my amendment is very simple. It would
strike the NEPA, known as the National Environmental Policy Act, waiver
and give the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of
Reclamation, the authority to apply Reclamation's directives and
standards for lease of power privilege projects, which is known as
LOPP.
The Bureau of Reclamation on its own accord has applied a categorical
exclusion, known as CE, to small conduit hydropower projects. In fact,
their CE went even further. It can be used to expedite a wide variety
of low-impact hydropower projects built on Reclamation's water
infrastructure. The main point of the legislation is to clarify that
Reclamation has jurisdiction over the development of conduit projects
on Reclamation facilities.
As I have mentioned before, the sponsor's amendment only tweaks the
language that should be removed from the bill entirely. The Tipton
amendment tinkers around the edge of the problem while my amendment
solves the problem by removing the waiver completely.
As a compromise, my amendment also increases the megawatt limitation
from 5 to 15 megawatts for small conduit hydro projects. This would
allow for more power to be created at those existing facilities.
Without the NEPA waiver, the agency can utilize its own categorical
exclusion, which has no megawatt limitation, and therefore makes the
cap on this legislation arbitrary. The NEPA waiver is unnecessary, and
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
Let me point out that it is my understanding that there have been
some projects built under the current--not the CE--that have taken a
lot more time and have been costly. And with a categorical exclusion,
there will be a cut not only in the cost but in time because it only
involves staff and the cost will be diminished.
[[Page H1886]]
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I just want to make a point
because at the end of the general debate, I brought up the issue of
NEPA that everybody says this is a wonderful bill except this part. Of
course, the gentlelady's amendment strikes the NEPA waiver, which I
pointed out again at the end of the general debate there seems to be
somewhat cause and effect of having NEPA and having projects go
forward.
But here is the important point on this, Madam Chairman, from my
point of view: this bill deals with the Bureau of Reclamation, the
Bureau of Reclamation that built ditches and conduits out of concrete
generally. Again, I spoke of the Columbia Basin Project in my district
and the Yakima Project in my district, and virtually all of the ditches
are concrete. That means that the land has already been disturbed in
order to put these facilities in place.
What the gentleman from Colorado's bill does is simply put a power
source within the existing ditches that have gone through environmental
review. Why, for goodness' sakes, would you have to jump through more
hoops, unless you wanted to slow the process down? Why you'd want to do
that, I don't know, because the end result of this is probably less
expensive energy. It's certainly American jobs, and it probably adds to
a growing economy. Yet there seems to be some idea that only NEPA can
save us from all of that.
Well, I reject that, and that's why I oppose the gentlelady's
amendment because it would waive that requirement.
Once again, Madam Chairman, this is on existing facilities that have
gone through environmental review. It doesn't need to jump through that
hoop one more time.
With that, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairman, we've heard talk today about creating
American jobs on American soil to be able to create American energy. No
bill better achieves that end than H.R. 678.
The Napolitano amendment, by striking the provision altogether that
she is offering, will allow no alternative to be able to streamline the
projects' approval process, and this amendment literally will ensure
that small investment in small hydropower projects would not be able to
be achieved. I think it's important to note we're spending $1.750
trillion per year in regulatory costs in this Nation.
Now, are all regulations bad? No, they aren't. But redundant
regulations which drive up costs, which inhibit our ability to be able
to create jobs to be able to put Americans back to work and to be able
to create clean, affordable energy should not stand in the way.
Let's put Americans back to work. Let's work together.
The purpose of my amendment is to be able to reach a reasonable
compromise between the two opposing ideas in regards to the NEPA
provision on manmade projects. As Chairman Hastings just ably noted,
these are manmade ditches. We have no impediment that's going to be
looked at when it comes to endangered species, be it fish or wildlife.
This has already gone through the desired process of environmental
review. So does it make good common sense to say that an area that's
been reviewed that was made by men does not have to go through an
additional review process in order to be able to create those jobs and
to be able to create American energy? I think that's a sensible
approach for us to be able to pursue.
With that, I would urge opposition and defeat of the Napolitano
amendment.
Let's get this job done and let's truly work to get Americans back to
work.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, this amendment strikes the NEPA
exclusion for small hydroelectric projects. That's the principal point
of the bill.
As the Subcommittee on Water and Power has repeatedly been told, it
is precisely this process that has doubled the cost of small hydro
projects simply making them cost prohibitive. This is akin to having a
full environmental review done when you build your home and then having
to do it all over again when you want to install a microwave in your
kitchen.
{time} 1440
One witness testified that installing 15 very small hydropower units
on a nearby Bureau of Reclamation canal system would cost over
$450,000, or $30,000 per unit, for additional NEPA reviews that would
ultimately conclude that there is no environmental impact.
That means the paperwork costs would be greater than the actual
capital cost of the hydropower units. No one in his right mind would
invest in a project with this kind of requirement. It simply makes no
sense, and that's the primary reason conduit hydropower development is
not happening.
It is true that the Bureau of Reclamation instituted a new NEPA
Categorical Exclusion for small hydroelectric projects back in
September of 2012, but 6 months later, this new policy has resulted in
precisely zero new projects moving forward. Even if projects were
moving forward today, this is only an administrative change and could
be changed back at any time.
In addition, an expert witness who happens to be a litigator
testified to our subcommittee that the current administrative process
is full of legal holes that could be exploited by those wanting to stop
these projects. Investors need certainty, and that requires a statutory
and not an administrative fix.
I appreciate and support the gentlelady's effort to allow the Bureau
to consider units with 15 megawatts, but I would remind her that zero
projects times 15 megawatts still equals zero electricity. Indeed,
there are practically no projects in this range to begin with, which
makes the amendment somewhat disingenuous. Even if there were, if the
current regulatory scheme isn't allowing 5-megawatt units, it certainly
won't allow 15-megawatt units. That's the problem.
Mr. Tipton's bill provides an automatic exclusion from this
duplicative and destructive NEPA requirement. The gentlelady's
amendment takes it back out again. That's not constructive and it's not
helpful.
To assure us that one supports small hydropower but opposes the
automatic exclusion in Mr. Tipton's bill reminds me of Leo Tolstoy's
observation when he said:
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me,
and all the while, I assure him and anyone who will listen
that I am sympathetic for his plight and I am willing to do
everything I can to help--except by getting off his back.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tipton
Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 4, insert ``(A)'' after ``(2)''.
Page 4, lines 8 and 10, strike ``work'' and insert
``conduit''.
Page 4, line 13, after ``offer'' insert ``for a small
conduit hydropower project''.
Page 4, after line 13, insert the following:
``(B) If the irrigation district or water users association
elects not accept a lease of power privilege offer under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall offer the lease of
power privilege to other parties in accordance with this
subsection.''.
[[Page H1887]]
Page 4, line 21, after ``hydropower'' insert ``policy and
procedure-setting''.
Page 5, line 18 strike ``involved, and'' and all that
follows though line 25 and insert the following ``involved.
The Secretary shall notify and consult with the irrigation
district or water users association operating the transferred
conduit before offering the lease of power privilege and
shall prescribe 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.''.
Page 6, after line 4, insert the following:
``(8) Nothing in this subsection shall alter or affect any
existing preliminary permit, license, or exemption issued by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under Part I of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792, et seq.) or any project for
which an application has been filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission as of the date of the enactment of the
Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development
and Rural Jobs Act.''.
Page 6, line 5, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
Page 6, strike lines 14 through 20, and insert the
following:
(B) Irrigation district.--The term ``irrigation district''
means any irrigation, water conservation or conservancy,
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.
Page 6, line 21, strike ``work'' and insert ``conduit''.
Page 6, line 22, strike ``work'' and insert ``conduit''.
Page 7, line 3, strike ``work'' and insert ``conduit''.
Page 7, line 4, strike ``work'' and insert ``conduit''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairwoman, I offer this amendment to provide
technical corrections and to eliminate drafting inconsistencies between
this year's bill and its counterpart in the 112th Congress.
This amendment reflects changes sought by the Bureau of Reclamation
with respect to definitions, to more accurately cover intended matters
and properly coincide with existing law and Bureau regulations.
Furthermore, the amendment clarifies that nothing in the bill affects
existing arrangements between irrigation and water districts and the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As you say, I think this is a technical amendment. It adds to the
bill, and I support it.
Mr. TIPTON. With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The gentleman's amendment makes technical changes
that staff has brought to our attention, and it addresses a few of the
administration's concerns.
The amendment clarifies that the projects already permitted under
FERC would not see any regulatory uncertainty with this bill's passage.
We are also in agreement with the amendment changes that require
greater consultation with irrigation districts and water user
associations prior to the approval of the Lease of Power Privilege.
We have no objections to this technical amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 232, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 94]
AYES--189
Andrews
Barber
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--232
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
[[Page H1888]]
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--10
Bass
Castor (FL)
Collins (NY)
Franks (AZ)
Hastings (FL)
Kinzinger (IL)
Lynch
Markey
Ros-Lehtinen
Walz
{time} 1514
Messrs. HENSARLING, LaMALFA, STEWART, and YOUNG of Alaska changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. CLARKE, and Messrs. DOGGETT
and CICILLINE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. COLLINS of New York. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 94, H.R. 678,
Agreeing to the Amendment, had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Acting
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. 678) to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities
for hydropower development under Federal Reclamation law, and for other
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 140, she reported the bill
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I'm opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Garamendi moves to recommit the bill H.R. 678 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 3. MAKE IT IN AMERICA.
Any lease of power privilege offered pursuant to this Act
or the amendments made by this Act shall require, to the
extent practicable, that all materials used for conduit
hydropower generation be manufactured in the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I suspect that, Mr. Speaker, all of us would want to
see more jobs in America. The great American manufacturing sector over
the last 20 years has lost about 9 million jobs. Twenty-five years ago,
no one throughout this world would doubt that the greatest
manufacturing Nation in the world was America. Twenty-five years later,
and 9 million jobs having been lost, America has lost its preeminence--
or is about to lose its preeminence. It would seem to me it's our job
here as representatives of the American public and the American economy
to do everything we possibly can to rebuild and reestablish the great
American manufacturing sector, to do everything we can to restore to
America those 9 million middle class jobs that have been lost to
outsourcing, to our companies moving overseas, and to some rather
impractical and rather foolish laws that have been passed and are on
the books.
{time} 1520
There is something we can do today with this bill. This bill, while
seeming to be small, ought to be our very first step this session to
make sure that in every piece of legislation we pass there would be an
incentive, an obligation, or an advantage for American manufacturers.
Small hydro, who's to care about small hydro? Well, there are four
businesses in America that would care a great deal about small hydro.
In New Mexico, the Elephant Butte Irrigation District develops low-cost
small hydro. Canyon Hydro in Deming, Washington, manufactures and
produces small hydro. NATEL Energy Company in Alameda, California,
manufactures small hydro programs. And James Leffel & Company in
Springfield, Ohio, manufactures the machinery for small hydro. This
bill would provide an opportunity for these four American companies to
build these small hydro projects, made in America, made by Americans.
The amendment that I'm proposing simply says, in addition to what is
in this bill, that we add a simple paragraph that says:
In all practical purposes, the machinery that is to be
constructed and used in these projects shall be made in
America by American workers.
One small step, but a necessary step, and one step along the way to
rebuilding the American manufacturing sector.
We can do this. There are those who say that, well, we're not making
it. Well, we are making it. And when we write laws that require that it
be made in America, guess what? Things are made in America.
In that stimulus bill--whatever you may think it, good or bad--there
was a provision written in that Amtrak was to have some new
locomotives. Someone put in an additional sentence that said these must
be 100 percent made in America. Siemens, the German company, came
forward and said: We can do that. And in Sacramento, California today,
a half-billion-dollar contract is being executed for numerous electric
locomotives for Amtrak, 100 percent American made.
We can establish the policies to make it in America and to rebuild
the great American manufacturing sector. We ought to be using all of
our tax money whenever we purchase something to be made in America. If
we're going to subsidize solar panels or wind turbines or even hydro
projects, then let it be American manufacturers that get that money--to
be made in America. Simple, but it's up to us. It's up to 435 of us.
What is to be our policy? Are we going to encourage American
manufacturing with something as simple as this amendment, or are we
simply going to shrug our shoulders and ignore the fact that 9 million
American manufacturing jobs have been lost? Are we to ignore our
responsibility to bring those jobs back here? I don't think there's one
of us among the 435 of us here, Mr. Speaker, that would say: not to
worry, let it be. No, I think all of us, Mr. Speaker, would want to
bring the American manufacturing jobs back.
This amendment--which would be the final amendment to the bill and
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee--this
amendment, if adopted, would proceed immediately to passage and give to
American workers a small but significant opportunity to have a well-
paying middle class job and once again America being the undisputed
leader in manufacturing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, during the course of debate
today, it was mentioned several times--which of course is true--that
virtually identical legislation passed in the last Congress with
bipartisan support. I find it rather ironic that the author of this
motion to recommit last year voted for this bill without the motion to
recommit language in it. So I think we have some common ground and
we're making some progress, and I thank the gentleman for his vote on
that.
But let's talk about what this bill does. This bill takes existing
American facilities, like irrigation ditches, and says, my goodness,
water running downhill has a sense of energy to it; we ought to somehow
capture that energy. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) says: Why
don't we put turbines in there and create American energy? Wonderful
idea. So that's what this bill
[[Page H1889]]
is all about. Nothing in this bill prevents anything that the gentleman
is proposing in his motion to recommit.
But I will just close by saying what this bill really does and what
the essence of what we're talking about here today. This bill creates
American jobs and American energy at no cost to the taxpayer. What else
is there to say? Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman had 5 minutes to make his
case. No, I will not yield to the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a
5-minute vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194,
nays 226, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 95]
YEAS--194
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--226
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Amodei
Bass
Castor (FL)
Collins (NY)
Cramer
Hastings (FL)
Kinzinger (IL)
Lynch
Markey
Ros-Lehtinen
Walz
{time} 1536
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. COLLINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, H.R. 678,
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416,
nays 7, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 96]
YEAS--416
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Hudson
[[Page H1890]]
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--7
Dingell
Johnson (GA)
Levin
Maloney, Carolyn
Moore
Sires
Smith (WA)
NOT VOTING--8
Castor (FL)
Collins (NY)
Cramer
Hastings (FL)
Lynch
Markey
Ros-Lehtinen
Walz
{time} 1546
Messrs. PALLONE, POCAN, SWALWELL of California and Ms. DUCKWORTH
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. COLLINS of New York. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 96, H.R. 678,
On Passage, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________