Small-Scale Hydropower Enhancement Act of 2011

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 570 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

This resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2842, succinctly titled the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act of 2011. It provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and makes in order all amendments which were preprinted in the Congressional Record and which otherwise comply with the rules of the House.

So this modified open rule is a very fair and generous rule--a continuation of the work of Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee-- and will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 2842. I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, Mr. Tipton of Colorado, as well as Mr. Gosar of Arizona, one of the cosponsors, Representative McClintock of California, who is the chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearings on this bill, and of course Chairman Hastings of the Resource Committee, who brought this bill forward as one of the companion pieces of the myriad of pieces of legislation which, if enacted, would greatly improve our Nation's energy policy and provide for a responsible and balanced approach to further energy development.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is the chair of the subcommittee that heard this particular bill.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this particular bill, who will talk about how to create real power using water resources that we have.

(Mr. TIPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I reserve the balance of my time.

I advise my colleague that I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am grateful that we have found new sources of energy, specifically oil and natural gas, on private property because it has not allowed the Federal Government to stop the development of those, and that is the growth that we have seen in recent times.

However, it is interesting to note that the bill before us, which deals with hydropower and development of more hydropower, is a bipartisan bill and for just cause. We can both agree, on both sides of the aisle, that there is a great need for more energy, and that greater, cheaper energy is vital to the growth of the economy and the growth of jobs. That's what this bill tries to do.

Frequently in this House, we have brought bills that have tried to increase our offshore drilling on Federal property. We have talked about the Keystone pipeline and the ability of 20,000 high-paying jobs if it were just permitted. We have talked about trying to increase domestic energy production on public lands that have been put off- limits by this particular administration. Those efforts we have dealt with. We have passed through this House. They're over sitting in the Senate waiting for action. And today we add to that effort with a significant bill that will add to our hydropower and hydroenergy that once again comes along with this.

But the problem that we have and the reason why this bill is here before us, if I can summarize, is, simply, our efforts to add this kind of energy to our portfolio are being stopped by special interest groups and, unfortunately, layers of bureaucracy.

It was Nelson Rockefeller who came up with the great line of calling the deadening hand of bureaucracy on proposals and programs; and, indeed, we see that and we feel it today as we are having a harder time trying to be energy independent, and we are feeling the results of the Federal Government's program to stop energy production on Federal lands and Federal property every time we fill up our cars and, unfortunately, every time we pay our electrical bills.

Now, it is bureaucratic manipulation that is causing this problem and why this bill is here. Look, it was the energy debate and the energy bill of 2005 that told the Federal Government to move forward in this area with making sure that we had a master plan for hydrological development of energy. Seven years later, now the Federal Government and our Department of the Interior is starting to move forward in that direction, which is either the old cliche of paralysis by analysis or the fact that Rockefeller was right when he called the bureaucracy a deadening hand on programs and progress.

One particular program, the Klamath River, took 5 years for government to decide who actually had the authority to move forward on the project. That is the kind of bureaucratic analysis, that's the kind of red tape that is slowing back our efforts to develop this type of energy, and we need it desperately.

That's why H.R. 2842 is here, to develop small projects that will add to our total energy portfolio and add to our independence. It stops and simplifies a regulatory process which unfortunately costs these small efforts, these small entities trying to make these efforts tens of thousands of dollars just to do the paperwork. It's ridiculous.

It clarifies the role of the Bureau of Reclamation on this area. This only

deals with Bureau of Reclamation projects on manmade facilities, but the jurisdictions are not clear. Some jurisdictions have been mandated by Congress; some are administrative; some are questions on whether FERC has responsibility, the Bureau of Reclamation has responsibility. That is causing our slowing in developing these projects. This bill clarifies what that role is.

It also clarifies NEPA, that you don't have to do a second NEPA on these small jobs. Anything greater than 1.5 megawatts of production, you do the analysis again. But for small projects, on man-made property where the land has already been disturbed and already has had an analysis done and the mitigation has already taken place, we move on and do the job.

The Bureau of Reclamation does have a right of categorical exclusion, but they won't do it. All they're saying is, We may start thinking about it some time in the future.

Let me give you an example. There are three specific projects in the neighboring State of mine. One was mandated by Congress in 1990. They are still starting the process because of that administrative red tape. Two other projects took a full year for them to decide to actually start going through a process, and when they did it, they realized there was no change; it had already been done before. All you did is take a year to check off the box and do the expense with it. We had somebody from Arizona come in and testify that the administrator review cost more than the actual construction of the project. That's silly. That is ridiculous,

H.R. 795 deals with this same issue on non-Federal land. This bills deals with this same issue on existing Bureau of Reclamation projects. It's a commonsense development to get an untapped resource that we need to develop. It would not significantly enlarge the environmental footprint because these are already man-made entities who have already gone through the NEPA process once, and there is no rational reason to reinvent the wheel and do it a second time only to find out they were right the first time.

What would be the benefit from this bill?

First of all, new sources of clean energy to add to our portfolio.

Second, we can facilitate small projects to help offset carbon-based irrigation pumping in the West.

Third, it would help reduce the cost of energy. It would produce a cash flow to irrigation districts so they could actually increase and pay for and improve their aging infrastructure and modernize these water facilities.

Fourth, it does create jobs, and for once we have a bill that actually increases revenue coming into the government from this. CBO has estimated, the Congressional Budget Office, that this will generate $5 million in additional revenue coming into the government. So not only can we create more energy, we can do the right thing, we can fix our infrastructure, but we actually make money that comes into the government to help with other issues.

There is a reason this is a bipartisan bill: because it's the right thing to do.

There is a reason why we should move forward with this bill: because it taps a valuable resource that will go to waste if we do not do it.

There is a reason that this bill is here: to speed up the regulatory red tape, to cut through the cost, to make things happen and help us move forward as a Nation with better energy development and energy independence.

There's a whole bunch of good reasons for this bill, and that's why I support the bill, and I also support the rule that will make it possible to give a good and fair open balance to this debate.

With that, this is a good bill and an incredibly fair rule. I urge the adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, in my home State of New York, unemployment continues to remain stubbornly high. Thousands of Americans have given up looking for work altogether. For many, unemployment benefits have expired, and there is little hope that a paycheck will soon be a regular part of daily life.

Despite this dire economic reality, once again we are going through a bill that has nothing to do with job creation. Instead, we have piecemeal proposal after piecemeal proposal to do more to further ideological goals than create jobs.

Instead of creating jobs, today's bill would clarify lines of authority for two government agencies. Is this a worthy goal? Maybe. Some say yes. But does it create thousands of American jobs? The answer is clearly no.

As they have with so many other bills, the majority has also inserted unnecessary partisan language into today's bill language that attacks existing environmental law for no good reason. Specifically, it provides a categorical exemption for all small hydropower projects from National Environmental Policy Act compliance. There is no clear reason for this exemption from environmental protection.

Currently, hydropower projects that don't raise substantive environmental concerns have always been approved relatively quickly. From 2006 to 2010, 13 exemptions were completed in less than a year each. In 2011, there were nine exemptions that were granted in an average of 40 days. Yet, despite seeing a system that works relatively well, the majority decided to once again put industry before the environment and include this controversial provision. This approach may fill a legislative calendar, but it fails to create jobs for the American people.

We could be considering a 5-year surface transportation bill, which everybody's waiting for, something we were supposed to consider weeks ago. A well-written and bipartisan bill--and all the transportation bills from the Eisenhower administration up to now were always bipartisan bills--would have created thousands of American jobs; but, once again, no such bill has come to the floor. Instead, they were forced to pull a proposed surface transportation bill because they had alienated Members of their own party with extreme provisions that would decimate public transportation and fail to create jobs.

Now we continue to wait as the majority works to write a reasonable transportation bill that will actually create jobs. In the meantime, we consider bill after bill that does nothing to create the many thousands of jobs that are so desperately needed.

Madam Speaker, the record is clear. When the majority pushes partisan politics over good governance, the American people lose. Today is the latest in a long line of such partisan bills, and yet one more day when the American people will go without new American jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question--and I hope we will--I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts the rule, we will bring up H.R. 964, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act.

To talk about our proposal, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Millions of Americans remain out of work, countless more run out of unemployment assistance, and meanwhile gas prices continue to rise on every American family; and they are turning to us for much needed relief.

Today's bill does nothing to address these pressing economic issues. Instead, we're doing more busy work on the floor today, preparing to consider a bill that clarifies the responsibility for two government agencies. This type of bill does little to create the many thousands of jobs needed to begin reviving our economy.

I urge my colleagues to end the long delay and finally bring forth two American job-creation legislations so that American families can live with some hope.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, this rule brings to the floor one of the most simple and sensible bills on energy development that we have yet heard. It is H.R. 2842, offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

What it promises is this: At precisely no cost to taxpayers, freeing up absolutely clean electricity on a scale so vast that it would take several hydroelectric dams to duplicate, simply by relaxing the regulatory stranglehold, simply by getting government bureaucrats out of the way, this bill has the potential of adding thousands of megawatts of absolutely clean and renewable electricity to the Nation's energy supply, reducing utility bills, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and, to answer the gentlelady from New York, adding thousands of permanent high-paying jobs to the Nation's economy. All that is necessary for this to happen is for government bureaucrats to get out of the way and allow people to place small hydroelectric generators in thousands of miles of existing pipelines, canals, and aqueducts.

This doesn't involve new construction. The facilities are already there. It doesn't involve any adverse impact to the environment. These are water pipes and canals in which there are no fish of any kind. And yet this administration forces water users and developers to go through a lengthy, costly, and pointless environmental review process that literally doubles the cost of these projects and makes them cost prohibitive.

The reason there are so few applications is because the requirements of this absurd law simply make these projects cost prohibitive, and it simply doesn't make sense to move forward with them. This bill simply says this: You don't need to go through that nonsense anymore.

Now, why isn't this bill being taken up on suspension? It would be one of the all-time no-brainers. It passed the Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan vote. The reason that this debate is required is because this commonsense legislation is vigorously opposed by the environmental left; that is the measure of extremism from which this movement now suffers. Perhaps the best way to alert the American people to this extremism is through debate that this rule makes possible.

A generation ago, in the 1960s, electricity was so cheap that some communities didn't even bother with electricity meters, and there's a reason for

that. In those days, we were building hydroelectric dams that not only protected us from floods and droughts, but that delivered electricity for as little as 3 cents per kilowatt hour. At that price, an average household's electricity bill would come to about $30 a month. That dream seems surreal today.

Today, government regulations are literally threatening the ability of this Nation to generate sufficient electricity to keep people's air conditioning and refrigerators running in the summer, just as similar policies prevent Americans from prospering from our vast petroleum reserves and nuclear power potential.

It's no coincidence that the States with the most stringent regulations also have the highest electricity prices and the sickest economies. People of my State of California, the land of vast unrealized hydroelectric potential and a pioneer in nuclear power, now use less electricity per capita than any other State in the Union, and yet we pay among the highest electricity prices in the country. We also suffer from one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, despite ceaseless empty promises of green jobs.

Now along comes this bill by Mr. Tipton of Colorado that does everything the environmental left claims it likes: It produces absolutely clean and renewable electricity in vast quantities at precisely no cost to taxpayers. It requires no new construction. All that's necessary to achieve this is to put small generators in existing pipelines and canals that have already passed environmental review and pose no conceivable environmental impact. Yet, instead of embracing this measure, these radical elements instead throw a conniption fit.

Well, let them do that in public. Let the American people see this debate. Let them see for themselves the nihilistic ideology behind this movement and how it is practiced by those in this Congress who share and support it, and then let the American people judge. I think the debate over this bill will offer our fellow citizens a real insight into this movement, and I support the resolution that makes this debate possible.

As a sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, I support the rule on H.R. 2842, and I encourage an open debate because I believe the merits of this bill will speak for themselves. H.R. 2842 is a bipartisan plan to authorize new hydropower production and streamline the regulatory process in order to create new American jobs.

Many rural water and irrigation districts and electric utilities in western States seek to develop hydropower on Bureau of Reclamation water canals and pipelines, but overburdensome and unnecessary regulations stand in the way and discourage investment in these projects. Most of these small projects are not currently authorized at Bureau of Reclamation canals and, as a result, they never get off the ground. Those that are currently authorized are subject to an additional review process under the National Environmental Policy Act even though the canals on which they are built have already gone through a full environmental review when they were constructed or rehabilitated.

H.R. 2842 authorizes the production of hydropower at all Bureau of Reclamation conduits; and by doing so, it allows placement of small hydropower generators on existing man-made canals and pipes that have already gone through the NEPA process. This authorization does not currently exist, and therefore hydropower development under current reclamation law will not happen unless Congress acts. This bill also eliminates duplicative red tape by exempting small hydropower projects on previously disturbed ground from going through an additional NEPA review. This bill does not apply to rivers, large dams, or natural- flowing waters in any way, and it will not impact endangered fish or wildlife.

In many cases, having to go through an additional unnecessary review process determines whether or not a hydropower project is economically feasible and, as a result, determines whether or not this country moves forward with the development of green energy.

Chris Treese of the Colorado Water District in the Natural Resources Committee testified on this bill and he stated:

Environmental reviews under NEPA are universally time

consuming and expensive. The River District's current

experience with an environmental assessment on a

nonconstruction action has taken over a year and nearly $1

million in outside expenses.

By eliminating this duplicative requirement, we can add power to the grid, provide an environment for job growth in rural America and return revenues to the Treasury. This commonsense piece of legislation has bipartisan cosponsorship and passed out

of the committee with bipartisan support. It's also been endorsed by the rural irrigators and electric utilities that operate the Bureau of Reclamation canals and know the issue best. These organizations include: the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, the American Public Power Association, and the Association of California Water Agencies.

I'm proud to offer this contribution to the House Republicans of the all-of-the-above energy strategy for America, and I look forward to a spirited discussion on how we can produce more renewable energy and put our people in this country back to work.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Madam Speaker, 180 days ago, the President of the United States came to this Chamber and laid out before the country and the Congress some very specific proposals to help put Americans back to work. The President proposed that we give a tax cut to small businesses who hire people. The House has never voted on that proposal. The President proposed that at a time when our bridges and roads and airports and ports need construction and reconstruction, that we put Americans back to work in the construction industry performing those vitally necessary tasks. The House has never voted on that proposal. At a time when police officers and firefighters and teachers are being laid off across our country, the President proposed some short-term relief so we could put our officers back on the beat, our firefighters back on the apparatus, our teachers back in the classroom. The House has never voted on that proposal.

Here we are 6 months later, doing what we're doing today. In that 6 months, another crisis has manifested itself, one that affects Americans across our country more severely every day, and that is each time they fill up their vehicle, it takes just a little bit more money out of their grocery budget, the utility budget, what they use to pay their mortgage payment, what they use to educate their children. The rising price of gasoline is a serious threat to the prosperity and stability of American families.

The president of Exxon has said that his conclusion is that about $30 of the cost of a barrel of crude oil is attributable to the speculation of prices by people who never really buy, sell or use oil, but who bet on its price: casino gamblers, not deliverers of oil. Goldman Sachs estimates that anywhere from $22 to $28 a barrel is also due to speculation, and they ought to know because they're no doubt participating in it.

The bill that we would propose be put on the floor this afternoon would crack down on that speculation. It would require that trades be disclosed; it would empower regulatory agencies to identify illegal price manipulation behavior; and reduce the price of crude oil to American consumers.

There are other ways to do this. I, for one, favor increased domestic production. I think there are ways that we can increase the natural gas and coal and oil that we produce. I certainly think that we should expand renewables as well. But there is one regulatory tool that we have not given our regulators and we ought to give it to them here. The underlying bill is certainly worthy of consideration, but we have an immediate energy problem here in America, an immediate jobs problem. And I would respectfully suggest that the right vote is to defeat the previous question so we may move on and consider legislation that would deal with the current price of gasoline prices.