Providing for 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this bipartisan legislation.

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.

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.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), another member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I am prepared to close general debate if the gentlelady is prepared to close.

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.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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.

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. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 140 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

This resolution provides for a modified open rule for the consideration of H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act, and provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

It 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 very fair, it's a generous rule, and it will provide for a balanced and open debate on the merits of this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased to stand before the House and support this rule, as well as the underlying legislation, H.R. 678, which is the long title I gave earlier.

I appreciate the hard work of the bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), as well as the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), and of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, Mr. McClintock of California, for allowing this bill to move forward from the committee and continuing the Natural Resource Committee's record, under Chairman Hastings' leadership, of furthering several important pieces of legislation which, if enacted, will greatly improve our Nation's energy policies and provide a responsible, balanced approach to further domestic energy development.

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

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

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of this piece of legislation, to explain why it is so necessary that we do this, even though on paper it seems like this problem is solved.

Let me take a moment just to give my impression of this particular bill, and then I'll be ready to close at that time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill which had a bipartisan vote in this body last time and a bipartisan vote in the committee, sent to the Senate, where an errant Senator was able to hold the process up. Fortunately, in this session, there is a new chairman of that committee in the Senate from the West who clearly understands the value and significance of hydroelectric power.

So I think that everyone in this body on both sides of the aisle can agree that our Nation is in great need of more energy. If we want to create real jobs, private sector jobs, there has to be a strong energy component to our ability to do that. Our Nation has tremendous amounts of energy that are locked away domestically in the forms of oil and gas and low sulphur and high-BTU coal reserves; but too often special interest groups and layers of bureaucracy have kept us from becoming more energy self-sufficient with these areas. And we're now seeing and feeling the results every time somebody tries to pay an electric bill.

This administration seems to be dragging its feet on energy development of everything from the Keystone Pipeline to the development of public lands. But there is also another source of energy that is presently being unused and can be put to good use without negatively impacting the environment. The energy resource is what we're addressing here in this particular bill. This bill deals with electricity that can be generated from hydro, a renewable energy resource that is very clean and helpful to the environment.

Numerous witnesses testified this year and last year that there is an uncertainty on the NEPA costs, which throw these projects into limbo and often render projects financially unfeasible and stifle private investment far beyond what has been able to be done. Thus, this is stifling what could be done to produce self-sufficiency in energy production. One witness from Arizona simply testified in 2011 that it would cost them $20,000 to install this generator that would create energy in a Federal canal. Yet the NEPA analysis would cost them $50,000 to check the boxes and do that simple paperwork, as we have heard about. The environmental paperwork in this case is almost three times the cost of the capital that you would put into the project. And it all is redundant since the NEPA analysis was done in the first place for the entire canal. This is a second project put in the same canal that has already gone through this process. It's a manmade canal.

Witnesses have testified this year that despite the Bureau of Reclamation's claim of its categorical exclusions and having a policy in place, not one project has utilized this project because of a potential legal uncertainty surrounding categorical exclusions.

As a result, there is no new development that has occurred, and the gentleman from Colorado's amendment will improve this particular situation. So, once again, let this be done.

This is not denying a NEPA review. NEPA has already been done on every one of these projects. This is saying you don't need to do the same thing a second time, which is simply redundant, it is silly, it's red tape, bungling by administrations that need not be there.

The choice is very simple in this particular bill: Either you can give the administration, the executive branch, the right to make these kinds of decisions on moving us forward, in which case the administration can make and can take away their decision at whim, in which case it invites litigation because of the uncertainty of an administrative policy, and also invites conflict within different administrative agencies. Or we can do what we're supposed to do and actually pass legislation to solve problems. The gentleman from Colorado's approach is simply allowing the legislature to make the decision, to institute what the policy will be and tell the agencies how they will proceed into the future. We can either have the legislature stand up and do our job and do it the right way or we can pass it all off and let the executive branch come up with regulations now which they could change and also are subject to the fear of litigation.

This is an easy thing to do. This bill actually should be a no- brainer. It will increase the energy production we have in the country, it will increase the ability of making sure that we have adequate water resources in the West, it will also give a needed boost of revenues to the canal companies, and it will create ultimately more jobs, especially with a cheap form of highly effective energy production.

This bill is reasonable, and it's understandable why it passed with a bipartisan vote last time. I hope it passes with a bipartisan vote again, and I hope we can recognize that this will move us forward.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time unless the gentlelady has other speeches that she has requests for.

I am prepared to close when you are.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me state a couple of things. Number one, this is a good rule. Therefore, you should vote for this rule. It is a fair and open rule--a fair and modified open rule. More importantly, it is a rule that will allow us to discuss a very good bill. This bill encourages energy production. We may think of these as small energy projects, but I am told that all these small projects already being held up in Colorado would create the amount of energy that comes from a large project like the Glen Canyon Dam. It's a large amount of energy that is clean energy that we will be producing. Number two, this bill gets rid of redundancy. It is not that we are doing away with environmental protection or a review for environmental protection. That environmental protection review has already been done. It is that we're simply saying for these small projects you don't need to do the same thing a second time and incur the cost, which is an amazing amount of cost, and potential litigation factors that go along with it.

If we do want to produce private sector jobs, and that is a worthy goal, you have to have energy to do it. This bill produces the energy which will be used to grow the economy to produce those jobs that we really want. That is why it is a bipartisan bill, and I expect a bipartisan vote on this particular bill. It's a good bill, and we should pass it today. This is a fair rule, and I urge its adoption.

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

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. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

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).

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

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.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how many minutes we have remaining?

May I inquire of my colleague how many other speakers he has?

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.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer the Napolitano amendment identified as amendment No. 1 in the Congressional Record.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, last Friday we received the news that the economy had only added 88,000 jobs in the month of March. The percentage of unemployed Americans dropped, but that is almost entirely because thousands of workers have given up looking for jobs at all.

This slowdown is a warning to Congress, but we won't take it, I feel sure, since we've pretty much ignored it. Unless this majority reverses the spending cuts contained in the sequester, the health of our economy is only getting worse.

Months ago, economists were warning that the sequester will stall out our economy and lead to job loss, and as we can see by the March data, their predictions are beginning to come true.

With economic warning bells beginning to toll, one would expect Congress to make job creation our number one priority. But one would certainly be wrong because we haven't done that at all. Unfortunately, such expectations don't even come close.

Instead of working on legislation to grow our economy and to create some good-paying jobs, we are wasting valuable session time discussing yet another bill that went nowhere in the last Congress, and I predict will go nowhere in this one as well. But we seem to have the time to waste.

The majority has decided that erasing environmental regulations for hydropower companies is a better use of time than putting Americans back to work and to help families pay their bills.

Furthermore, the bill before us today is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. Despite the rhetoric of the majority, small conduit hydropower projects are rarely delayed because of environmental regulations. In fact, from 2006 to 2010, 13 exemptions were completed in less than a year, and in 2011 there were nine exemptions that were granted in an average of 40 days.

In addition, changes within the last year have made the process even easier for hydropower developers. Under the new regulations by the Bureau of Reclamation, all a developer has to do to avoid a full environmental assessment is to get a simple, 1\1/2\ page form filled out with 15 boxes to check ``yes'' or ``no.'' That is certainly not a burdensome regulation. All they have to do is check the box ``yes'' or ``no,'' indicate the project is not in an especially sensitive area.

Most small conduit hydropower projects will easily pass this test because the reclamation sites are already developed. But despite what you may hear, there is little evidence that there is even a problem with hydropower regulation that needs to be solved.

Contained within today's legislation is a proposal to clarify the lines of authority between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. This is a worthwhile effort that would receive bipartisan support, and we made that very clear. Standing alone, though, this proposal could pass on suspension within a matter of minutes. That would, of course, leave us with nothing to do here today, so here we are.

During the debate in the Natural Resources Committee, the majority was given the opportunity to agree to the noncontroversial and bipartisan parts of the legislation and drop their partisan attacks on environmental safeguards.

Unfortunately, the majority has once again rejected this chance for productive compromise and chosen the partisan path. And as a result, we are here spending time debating another partisan bill that will not pass the Senate and turning our back on the pressing economic needs of this country.

I've said many times on the floor during rules debates that CBS News had estimated it costs $24 million a week to run the Congress of the United States. And it has been embarrassing that we do so little work. But for millions of Americans, the luxury of the time that we take here is something they cannot afford.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation so we can get back to the task of growing our economy, repealing the sequester, and creating American jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time until my colleague is ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, so I am prepared to close if my colleague is.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, today's bill does nothing to address the pressing economic issues facing every American household and fails to stop the sequestration cuts that are threatening our economy as a whole. It's rather ambiguous. On one hand it gives; on the other hand it takes back away, but we'll get into that in the general debate.

Instead, today's legislation unnecessarily attacks environmental protections while doing nothing to create new jobs. Today's legislation includes a blanket waiver for all small conduit hydropower projects that generate less than 5 megawatts of power. The requirement is arbitrary and would fail to protect the environment. Environmental danger is not determined by the megawatts produced but whether the hydropower project is located where it is likely to do damage. A 1- megawatt project in the wrong location would be more harmful to the environment than a 6-megawatt project in the right location.

Perhaps most importantly, consideration of this legislation is taking up time that we could otherwise be using to repeal the sequester and create jobs. As I have mentioned repeatedly on the House floor, my colleague and ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen, has appeared at the Rules Committee repeatedly offering legislation to repeal the sequester and reduce our deficit in a responsible way. The Rules Committee on at least three times has never even allowed it to come to the floor. Despite voting on hydropower legislation twice in the last 13 months, the majority has rejected Mr. Van Hollen, who, as I said, is the ranking member on the Budget Committee, and his bill would save and create thousands of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1426 from Representative Tim Bishop of New York to roll back tax giveaways to big oil companies. The bill is known as the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous matter immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can get back to trying to grow our economy and create American jobs,

and I yield back the balance of my time.

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