Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 154 due to a family health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Question of Consideration of H. Res. 614, the resolution providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 4089, to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 155 due to a family health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Ordering the Previous Question of H. Res. 614, the resolution providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 4089, to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 156 due to a family health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to the resolution of H. Res. 614, the resolution providing for consideration of the bill H.R. 4089, to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 157 due to a family health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 1815, the Lena Horne Recognition Act.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 163 due to a family health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Motion to recommit H.R. 4089--Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 17, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 164 due to a family health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Final Passage of H.R. 4089--Sportsmen's Heritage Act of 2012.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 16, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 152 due to a family health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on suspending the rules and agreeing to H.R. 3001--Raoul Wallenberg Centennial Celebration Act.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 16, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 153 due to a family health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on suspending the rules and agreeing to H.R. 4040--To provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress

to Jack Nicklaus in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence and good sportsmanship in golf.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I do rise in support of the general premise--I repeat--the general premise of this legislation, but oppose the legislation as amended. I would like to mention that only 3 out of 15 Democrats support it. So while it is bipartisan, it is minor bipartisanship on this particular issue.

H.R. 2842 does seek to generate additional hydropower at the existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities--that is, Federal properties--through developing new process of conduit and in-canal hydropower, which we should be developing at a greater speed and length.

We cannot support this bill as amended, even though the original bill did also state it and an attempt was tried to be able to take this waiver language out on page 4, lines 12 to 15. We were unsuccessful, and we cannot support it because it does have a NEPA waiver, language that we cannot support.

We are in support of the general intent. H.R. 2842, the Federal conduits, continue to fall under Reclamation Lease of Power Privilege process, LOPP. It requires offering a preference to irrigation districts or water users associations with an existing contract, those that already have a contract, which we support.

It safeguards current project users by recognizing the project's primary authorized purposes and that no financial and/or operational costs will be incurred by the existing water and power users.

The Federal Power Marketing Administrations are also--and I repeat-- are not obligated to purchase or market the power produced.

The legislation does go a step too far and includes an unnecessary and unwise blanket exemption from a critical environmental law.

If my colleagues on the other side had simply followed the advice of the National Hydropower Association and the conservation group American Rivers, we would have a noncontroversial bill which would have passed unanimously out of the House. We also received a letter from six environmental groups in opposition that I would like to include in the Record.

Proponents for exempting the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, will argue that government regulatory red tape is preventing the development of more hydropower. Reclamation already has the authority to comply with NEPA through categorical exemptions, and the system is working. Categorical exclusions have been issued for hydropower sites under the reclamation's LOPP process at three specific sites in Colorado: the Lemon, which was in 1989; the Grand Valley Power Plant in 2011; and Jackson Gulch in 1995.

NEPA compliance for other sites, in fact, has not been the bureaucratic chaos some would make it out to be. There are three projects in the home State of Colorado for my colleague, the sponsor of this bill. In Jordanelle, Utah, compliance took 15 months from start to finish to receive final permit in 2004. At Lake Carter, Colorado, it took 6 months to finish NEPA in 2010. At Ridgway, Colorado, an LOPP was just issued last month after completing a 15-month NEPA process. On the South Canal Drop 3 site in Colorado, a finding of ``no significant impact'' was just issued last month after a 15-month NEPA process.

Developers and irrigators need clarity and certainty so their project can be developed. Waiving NEPA will not provide clarity and certainty. The stopgap for development is not NEPA; it's a lack of a Reclamation process. There must be a clear process in place for the development of hydropower at Reclamation facilities.

I urge Reclamation to finalize the directives and standards as soon as possible, and it's my understanding the draft is already out to developers and irrigators for their view, and the final directives and standards will be completed by the end of this year.

It is unfortunate that this legislation contains this controversial waiver. Without the NEPA exemption, this legislation would have been on suspension, and I do oppose the legislation and ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this very sad portion of waiver of NEPA.

March 6, 2012.

Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations, on

behalf of our millions of members and supporters are writing

to express our opposition to the provision in Section 2 of

H.R. 2842 that waives the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) with respect to small conduit hydropower projects at

Bureau of Reclamation facilities.

While we support the legislation's intent to encourage the

responsible development of renewable energy projects, waiving

NEPA reviews for Bureau of Reclamation projects is

unnecessary and unacceptable. The National Environmental

Policy Act is not a roadblock to the successful approval of

conduit hydropower projects at Bureau facilities. We believe

that this backward step will not accelerate hydropower

development. Rather, our experience has shown us that

attempts to shortcut or sidestep environmental review

typically result in delayed projects.

Successfully advancing the development of new energy

resources, like conduit hydropower, requires us to do better

than we have done with other forms of energy and other Bureau

of Reclamation projects. While we do not oppose the

development of conduit hydropower, it must be done

responsibly and under all of the appropriate reviews

necessary to make sure that such development is consistent

with the public interest; a guarantee that NEPA provides.

Therefore we respectfully request that you oppose H.R. 2842

unless the language requiring a NEPA waiver is struck from

the bill.

Sincerely,

American Rivers,

Center for Biological Diversity,

Defenders of Wildlife,

Grand Canyon Trust,

Natural Resources Defense Council,

The Wilderness Society.

I couldn't agree with him more. My only objection is the small portion of the NEPA waiver.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Ranking Member Markey.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with Mr. Gosar more on some of his presentation that the bureau would be able to expedite some of these projects, and they are working on that categorical exemption determination to be able to understand how they can expedite some of these projects.

NEPA is not some radical piece of legislation. It was overwhelmingly approved by Congress more than four decades ago and signed into law by President Nixon.

It is not an obstacle. It's a tool to be used to facilitate coordination, cooperation, and public input. It is not a barrier. It is a shield protecting our communities, yours and mine, from the unintended consequences that can occur when a big, clumsy Federal Government acts without thinking.

NEPA does not and cannot prevent projects from going forward. They just require the government to analyze alternatives and, most importantly, seek public comment. Evidence that NEPA does not stop projects is plain. Our majority cannot provide a single example where NEPA prevented one of these small projects, the hydroprojects from moving forward. Most applications are granted expeditiously and easily. It also provides the Bureau of Reclamation all the flexibility necessary to apply NEPA quickly and efficiently to the projects. There is no delay.

To oppose NEPA is to oppose public input. Again, it would then oppose public input. To oppose NEPA is to oppose thinking before we act.

This unnecessary and unwise blanket waiver of NEPA should be struck from this bill and then this bill could be passed unanimously and go on to approval in our other body.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that we fully

support the intent of the legislation without the exemption of NEPA stated on page 4, lines 12 15. And I must say that I have working relationships with some of my universities; and one of them, Cal Poly Pomona, has been working with hydrokinetics for awhile. We have been kind of tracking the issues of hydrokinetics and some of their results, the projects that they've got in New Jersey and New York, to be able to generate electricity. We have for at least 5 years been trying to make Congress and the committee understand that this is something that is very viable. Even the heat off the pumping motors is being recaptured and converted into electricity in one of my areas.

So I fully understand and I'm glad that it's finally beginning to take hold that there is the ability to create electricity from hydro. We support increased generation at all facilities by developing conduit and in-canal hydropower.

And, again, I support all of the provisions that I stated here, but waiving NEPA does not provide the clarity and the certainty needed to be a clear process for the development of hydro at reclamation facilities. That's Federal facilities only. We must ensure that the lease-of-power privilege, the law, is clear and does provide specific certainty. It should be consistent with the FERC process, as stated in the letter from the National Hydropower Association and American Rivers, as introduced into the Record. We will be proposing an amendment to fix the problem, and we want to make this in a truly bipartisan manner and look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I do not.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment striking out language in section 2, page 4, lines 12 15. It removes the exemption of the NEPA waiver for small conduits on Federal land.

The proponents of this measure again will argue that FERC regulations allow for categorical exemption for certain conduit hydropower projects that meet statutory and regulatory criteria and do not have the potential for significant environmental impacts. This is true.

First, treatment of conduits is not the same. It is not the same as what the legislation attempts where all environmental regards are completely waived. This bill, H.R. 2842, as amended, proposes to totally exempt all small hydro from the FERC exemption process. Reclamation already has the same authority as FERC to develop a process of complying with NEPA. Reclamation has already been in the process of investigating whether small hydropower developed in conduits or canals may be appropriately placed under categorical exemption.

As I stated before, the draft is already out. They are consulting with developers and irrigators to ensure that this bill is what they need. They have also granted specific categorical exemptions to three LOP projects, as mentioned in my opening statement. Low impact hydropower can be efficiently developed by utilizing existing environmental review provisions.

We have seen examples of projects that have not unduly delayed project development, and I again point to the three projects as stated before utilizing the yellow pea process. I have placed the letters from the National Hydropower Association and American Rivers and others to highlight the views of the hydropower industry and the leading conservation group on hydropower. Both are supportive of H.R. 2842 as long as it is modeled after the process used by FERC.

It would provide for proper oversight, a longstanding practice FERC has shown.

I urge my colleagues to vote positively ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mrs. Napolitano

Amendment No. 1: Page 4, strike lines 12 through 15.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I really applaud my good friend, Doc Hastings, with some of the statistics that he was quoting about the farmers in the valley. There were misrepresentations, which were later clarified, of the actual figures that were affected and, unfortunately, they were very far apart, and that's just for the record. I will be glad to give them to anybody who wants them later.

H.R. 1387, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Water Reliability Act is anything but. It repeals existing State law as written for the use of the water from the San Joaquin River in California's Central Valley. It reallocates water in a way that elevates agricultural uses above all other water needs--that's municipal, fisheries, and environmental uses.

This bill was mostly aimed at California; believe me, mostly California. If enacted, it would set precedent: an unprecedented standard of State preemption, environmental disregard, and privatization of a public resource for the benefit of a select view. It could be, in my estimation, renamed the Barrister Employment Act.

The California State legislature stated it best:

H.R. 1837 is almost breathtaking in its total disregard for

equity and its willful subjugation of the State of California

to the whims of Federal action.

May I point out that in the past my colleagues on the other side have asked for less intrusion of the Federal Government, less government control, let the locals handle it. This would do the reverse. It would put it in the hands of the Federal Government to be able to determine the State's right to enact its own water laws.

Despite amendments to the bill by the majority, it still seeks to make sweeping negative changes to the State's ability to manage water in the west.

It amends the State constitution, and undermines California's ability to manage its own resources.

It would repeal or overturn nearly 20 years of environmental protections under the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, the CVPIA, and the Endangered Species Act, which is normally under attack by my friends on the other side.

It repeals the San Joaquin Restoration Settlement Act, a compromise widely supported by all stakeholders, and diminishes funds for restoration. It also completely eliminates the coequal goal of protecting the environment and allowing for water deliveries.

It puts jobs of fishermen at risk. The Pacific Fishery Management Council has raised concerns about the impacts on the fishery and fishing communities. The northwest fisheries were closed in 2008 and 2009 and parts of 2010. They had no fishing. The industry was lost to them.

The Subcommittee on Water and Power received over 34 letters with nearly 300 stakeholders opposing this legislation. They include the Western States Water Council; seven States--California, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and Wyoming; the Department of the Interior; and a statement of administration policy. Also, the senior Senator and the junior Senator of California oppose this. And the list goes on: elected officials, environmental groups, State legislatures, attorneys general offices, Governors' offices, and letters from these different States, not to mention the nonpartisan, 18 Governor-appointed Western States Water Council.

The scope of harmful provisions included in this legislation is matched only by the number of necessary provisions left out. Also, the severity of this legislation, which benefits only a small group, not all of California.

Through a series of amendments, my colleagues seek to address the glaring issues associated with the legislation--the subsidies reform, construction of new facilities, and use of best available science.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, I can't believe how many of these people that wrote letters and the stakeholders, including 105 fishing agencies, could be so wrong.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chairman, I must mention that California agriculture had the biggest banner year during that period, in other words, in the billions more than they had in prior years during this drought.

So with that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I also toured that area, and the devastation was very severe. I wish some of the areas would find another way to be able to find employment, because this is a chronic unemployment circle, if you will, for years, for decades; it isn't just new.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

May I ask what time we have left, sir?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from northern California (Mr. Miller).

I inquire of the Chair as to how much time remains.

I yield to the gentleman.

I have one more speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues on both sides to consider what this bill will do.

I now yield my remaining time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Actually, Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleague has said, his amendment makes technical changes to the legislation, but it leaves in question and very much in doubt--although it says the 40-year rule in Western water is standard--but is this in perpetuity?

I would like a response on that, if I may involve myself in a colloquy with my colleague, Mr. Chairman.

Is this a renewal every 40 years, or is it in perpetuity?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to know of '56. I wish to know what your amendment does.

I would ask again, is it in perpetuity?

Thank you, Mr. McClintock. Reclaiming my time, the technical memo also makes some standard corrections to the language passed out in committee. While we were not consulted in the drafting of this amendment, we don't oppose the amendment, as it does nothing substantial.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I wish to reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to thank my colleague on the other side for clarifying that, and I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a simple amendment. It creates a revenue stream through the elimination of debt without interest, in other words, ending free subsidy on $400 million. It requires that any new water contracts or renewed contracts must reflect the price of water with interest and repay the debt of the project, with interest, to the Treasury. It is a small, but very important, assist to continue to try to balance our Federal budget. We are always looking for ways to find these little--I call them ``pockets of money'' to be able to help out.

Reclamation established in 1902 was meant to deliver water to farms with a maximum of 160 acres, and it was provided interest free on the cost of that project. That was in 1902. Times have changed. Subsequent reclamation reform acts have changed the acreage limitation along with the repayment contracts for these projects. Congressional action has also made the repayment of project debt interest free--I repeat, debt interest free--on $400 million for irrigators while municipalities, like my constituency and power users, pay all of the required appropriate interest. I wish our water users in southern California were as lucky.

H.R. 1837 removes the role of the Federal Government in protecting the environment and public good. If we are removing the role of the Federal Government in protecting the environment and public good, as we plan to do, we should also remove the Federal subsidy associated with renewed or new water contracts. My constituency and anybody else's must be treated fairly and must be required to pay equally any additional interest on any future water contract and project.

Southern California foresaw the need for infrastructure, so local entities stepped up to the plate. They paid for and constructed new storage facilities, like a dam, the Diamond Valley Reservoir. It was entirely paid for by our local folks without one cent of Federal moneys--no tax cuts, no free interest at taxpayer expense.

Eliminating this unfair subsidy will help to cut our deficit. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

It is my understanding, then, that my colleagues on the other side are arguing to keep a subsidy. That's news to us.

Just as an aside, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, California agriculture experienced a 9 percent drop in the sales value of its products in 2009, which was at the height of the drought. The State's 81,500 farms and ranches received $34.8 billion for their output, down from an all-time high of $38.4 billion, which was reached in 2008.

Despite the water supply shortages and regulatory restrictions, the State's agricultural sales for 2009 were the third highest recorded; 2007, 2008 and 2009 were the years of the drought, and the three highest years of agricultural sales coincided with the three consecutive years of drought.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

I yield that time to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 17, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present'' to establish a quorum in the House of Representatives for the start of the Second Session of the 112th Congress.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Chinese American Film Festival, which was held in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, for celebrating its 7th successful year.

This year, the opening ceremonies were held on October 27, 2011 at the Directors Guild of America in Los Angeles, and on October 30, 2011 at the Marina Theatre in San Francisco. With over 10 workshops and seminars, and over 200 officially selected films that were screened in Hollywood, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the Festival has once again demonstrated how effectively the Chinese and American cultures can join together through the medium of film to create unique and outstanding work.

Many of those in the Chinese industry have been recognized by the American film industry, but for many others this was the first time these films had ever been screened in North America. The films chosen for the Festival were audiences' favorites in the Chinese and American film markets.

With the support of the Consulate General of China in Los Angeles, and the Motion Picture Association of America, the Chinese American Film Festival has become a grand annual event of cultural exchange and communication between the two film industries.

As one of the major annual cultural events in Hollywood, this festival demonstrates that creativity has no boundaries of race, color, language, or traditions. Through the window of film, people see each other, hear each other and understand each other. As described by James Su, Founder and current Chairman of the Festival, ``The Chinese American Film Festival continues to showcase the dynamic power of creations it produces when East meets with West and when hands are joined together.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Su and the Chinese American Film Festival for another successful year and for showing tremendous dedication to cultural exchange while opening communication between the Chinese and American film industries. Welcome to California, and welcome to the United States.

2010 CAFF Golden Angel Award Films: The Seal of Love; My Kingdom; Color Me Love; 72 Heroes; Detective D; Always Be With You; An Eternal Lamb; Love You You; A Simple Life; Snow Flower and the Secret Fan.

Best Documentary Film: The Day of Noah 2: Apocalypse.

Best Independent Film: Dali.

Best Asian American Film: Wedding Palace.

Best Short Film: A Petal Onto the Sea.

Best Children's Feature Film: Close to Me.

Charity Film: My Girlhood.

Outstanding Chinese Culture Promoter: Dedication.

Outstanding Chinese Film Promoter: Macau Film Association.

Chinese Film Promoter Mayor Award: Xin Hua City Mayor.

Outstanding Newcomer Actor: Joshua Hannum--Leading Actor of ``Once Upon a Time in Tibet.''

Outstanding Newcomer Actress: Zhou Yang--Leading Actress of ``Love You You.''

Outstanding Newcomer Director: Chen Miao--Director of ``Son of the Stars.''

Outstanding Newcomer Producer: Wang Bin, Yang Yue--The Producers of ``Time Flies Soundlessly.''

Best Actor of the Year: Wang Qianyuan--Leading Actor of ``The Piano in a Factory.''

Best Actress of the Year: Ni Ping--Leading Actress of ``The Sun.''

Best Director of the Year: Yang Yazhou--The Director of ``The Sun.''

Outstanding Achievement Award: Tang Guo Qiang.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 16, 2011, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 937 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of the Conference Report on H.R. 2055--Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R. 3672--Disaster Relief Appropriations Act and H. Con. Res. 94--Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 3671.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 16, 2011, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 938 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 500--Rule providing for consideration of the Conference Report on H.R. 2055--Consolidated Appropriations Act, H.R. 3672--Disaster Relief Appropriations Act and H. Con. Res. 94--Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 16, 2011, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 939 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on Senate Amendment to H.R. 1892--Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 16th, 2011, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 940 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on S. 278--Sugar Loaf Fire Protection District Land Exchange Act.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 16th, 2011, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 941 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Adoption of the Conference Report on H.R. 2055--Consolidated Appropriations Act.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, December 16th, 2011, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 942 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Con. Res. 94--Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 3671.