Amendment Text: H.Amdt.38 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (04/10/2013)

This Amendment appears on page H1885 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H1878-H1890]
 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SMALL CONDUIT HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL 
                                JOBS ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 678.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barr). Pursuant to House Resolution 140 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 678.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to preside over 
the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1338


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 678) to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities 
for hydropower development under Federal Reclamation law, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Poe in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small 
Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act.
  Those of us from the Pacific Northwest know and understand the 
importance of hydropower and the significant role it plays in our 
economy. In my home State of Washington, hydropower produces 70 percent 
of our power, and it helps keep electricity rates low and affordable 
for our residents.

                              {time}  1340

  It is one of the cheapest and cleanest forms of electricity, and 
helps make other intermittent sources of renewable energy, like wind 
and solar, possible.
  Yet too often, as is frequently the case with energy projects on 
Federal lands, the development of new hydropower gets caught up in 
bureaucratic red tape and regulations.
  Today's bill, sponsored by our colleague from Colorado, Mr. Tipton, 
would cut through that red tape to expand the development of small 
conduit hydropower. Specifically, it clears up Federal agency confusion 
by directly authorizing hydropower development at almost 47,000 miles 
of Bureau of Reclamation canals. It also streamlines the regulatory 
process for developing small canal and pipeline hydropower projects on 
existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities.

[[Page H1879]]

  Mr. Chairman, I want to stress the point that these new projects will 
only be at existing facilities. These existing man-made facilities have 
already gone through extensive environmental review when they were 
initially built. Requiring duplicative reviews on existing facilities 
only imposes unnecessary delays and, thus, administrative costs.
  I realize that the Bureau of Reclamation has come up with its own 
version of streamlining since we considered this bill in the last 
Congress, but it's only a theoretical version of streamlining since it 
has never been used in the 6 months after it was created. This bill 
simply streamlines the regulatory and administrative process so that 
water users can be free to develop hydropower at the Federal canals 
they already operate and maintain.
  This bill will help generate thousands of megawatts of clean, cheap, 
abundant hydropower and, thus, will bring in new revenue to the Federal 
Government and, more importantly, Mr. Chairman, create new American 
jobs. Best of all, we can do this at no cost to the American taxpayer. 
This is exactly the type of commonsense proposal that Republicans 
support as part of the all-of-the-above energy plan. Hydropower must be 
part of the solution. Families and small businesses rely on access to 
affordable electricity, and this bill is a simple way to lower prices 
by expanding production on one of the best forms of clean, renewable 
energy.
  Mr. Chairman, nearly identical legislation passed the House last 
Congress with bipartisan support. I hope the House will once again do 
so today, and that the Senate will take action on this job-creating 
energy bill.
  I want to thank particularly members of the Natural Resources 
Committee Mr. Tipton of Colorado, Mr. Gosar of Arizona, and Mr. Costa 
of California for their tremendous work on this bill and for being 
strong champions of small-scale hydropower production.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the general premise of this bill 
but oppose the legislation as is due to the inclusion of the NEPA 
waiver.
  Today we are debating H.R. 678, a bill that should be 
noncontroversial. In fact, it should have already been enacted into 
law. We all agree that adding small conduit hydropower projects is a 
great idea--no, it's really a wonderful idea--and H.R. 678 could have 
easily been passed through the House with overwhelming bipartisan 
support. But, unfortunately, my esteemed colleagues on the other side 
have chosen to turn this noncontroversial bill into a partisan fight 
over ideology by waiving compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act, NEPA, for Federal conduit projects.
  As my colleague from Washington indicated, it means jobs. It means 
the addition of clean energy. It means all of those things, but to the 
exclusion of NEPA. As the gentleman mentioned, H.R. 678 would amend the 
Reclamation Project Act of 1939 and, thus, would facilitate and expand 
the private development of small conduit hydropower at the Bureau of 
Reclamation facilities. The legislation seeks to accomplish several 
goals, the most important of which is authorizing reclamation to 
develop and increase power at most of those facilities.
  H.R. 678 also includes a provision that waives NEPA for all conduit 
projects generating less than 5 megawatts. The bill waives NEPA, which 
is on page 4, lines 14 to 18, even though the Bureau of Reclamation has 
implemented a categorical exclusion on their own accord to apply to 
small conduit projects. You may call it theoretical, but it has only 
been there 6 months, and it takes government a long time to get the 
word out to those parties. The waiver of NEPA in this bill is 
unnecessary, since Reclamation has already implemented this guidance 
through this categorical exclusion. The legislation seeks to solve a 
NEPA problem that does not exist. Unfortunately, some Members on the 
other side of the aisle have characterized the waiver of NEPA as ``the 
main purpose of this legislation.''

  The waiver in this bill is the exact same waiver that Republicans put 
into the nearly identical bill last Congress. Just like the last time, 
the Senate will not pass it, and the bill will again expire in the 
Senate. This is totally unnecessary. This is not what anyone on this 
side of the aisle wants to see happen, and we would support the bill 
without the NEPA waiver.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and ask my colleagues to do 
the same.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman 
of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation on the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the so-called streamlining that the Bureau has pledged 
to do and has done has produced no new projects for reasons that were 
made very clear to our Subcommittee on Water and Power by numerous 
witnesses. NEPA is at the heart of the problem. As the chairman said, 
the Bureau of Reclamation operates 47,000 miles of pipelines and canals 
that have already undergone extensive environmental review. By 
installing small generators in the existing pipelines, we could add the 
equivalent generating capacity of major hydroelectric dams, meaning 
millions of dollars of new revenue to the government, millions of watts 
of new, clean, cheap electricity, and all the jobs these projects would 
produce.
  The gentlelady has said that she supports the objective and is 
willing to do everything that she can to help except by getting 
government out of the way. The Federal bureaucracy has made it cost 
prohibitive for people to install these small generators in these 
existing canals and pipelines. Rather, they force them to conduct 
crushingly expensive environmental reviews, navigate time-consuming 
bureaucratic mazes, pay exorbitant administrative fees, and risk the 
uncertainties of endless internal review and external litigation. These 
bureaucratic obstacles often cost more than the projects themselves and 
turn sensible, economic electricity projects into cost-prohibitive 
farces.
  As proposed to be amended, this bill requires the Bureau to 
categorically exclude the installation of these small, hydroelectric 
generators in existing facilities that have already undergone 
environmental review. It designates the central office within the 
Bureau to provide uniform guidance on processing applications. It 
establishes a sensible and streamlined process to determine development 
rights. And it ensures that installation of hydrogenerators will not 
disrupt existing water operations.
  Mr. Chairman, think about the implications just to farming as one 
example. Some irrigation districts are forced to use diesel generators 
to pump water to their fields. You put hydroelectric generators in 
existing canals and pipes, and they become virtually self-sustaining, 
while reducing reliance on other sources of electricity that do produce 
air emissions.
  It is truly mystifying that a Nation plagued by prolonged economic 
stagnation, chronic unemployment, and increasingly scarce and expensive 
electricity would adopt a willful and deliberate policy obstructing the 
construction of these inexpensive and innocuous generators in already-
existing facilities. Even FERC, a bastion of regulatory excess, agrees 
that these studies are unnecessary when conducted on similar non-
Federal facilities.
  I believe this bill is a model for the future. I hope that similar 
regulatory reforms will soon be extended to other Federal and non-
Federal facilities.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member, 
Congresswoman Napolitano, for her efforts on this legislation, Chairman 
Doc Hastings, as well as the chair of the subcommittee, Tom McClintock, 
and the author of this measure, Congressman Tipton, for trying to bring 
folks together.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. Chairman, people from every walk of life are looking to Congress 
today to see if we can come together to deal with any of our problems, 
whether they be big, small, or in between. I rise today to support 
legislation, I think, that does that. This isn't the biggest

[[Page H1880]]

legislation we'll deal with this year, nor is it the smallest; but it's 
something that will help America's energy policy.
  Our bipartisan bill would amend the Reclamation Act, as has been 
stated, of 1939, to create a permanent process for how local irrigation 
districts and water agencies develop this very valuable, renewable, 
carbon-free energy at our reclamation facilities. And as we're putting 
together an energy policy that uses all-of-the-above, this becomes an 
important part.
  H.R. 678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower 
Development and Rural Jobs Act, is a bipartisan bill that puts existing 
resources and knowledge we already have to expand one of the most 
important tools in our Nation's energy toolbox. Let me repeat that: one 
of the most important tools in our Nation's energy toolbox.
  Hydropower is the single largest source of clean, sustainable energy 
and has been powering our country for over 100 years throughout the 
land. When most people think about hydropower, of course, they think 
about the big projects, Hoover Dam and other modern engineering 
marvels.
  However, the beauty of this hydropower legislation is it can also be 
used on much smaller scaled, reliable projects in which we already have 
the infrastructure in place. Every day, water flows thousands of miles 
through canals, pipes and ditches across this country. I know--I happen 
to represent one of those places, the great San Joaquin Valley, in 
which we have a vast network of dams and reservoirs and canals that 
provide that water for those who most need it, our cities and our 
farms.
  We have an old saying: where water flows, food grows. Every day we 
miss valuable opportunities to utilize this resource's full potential. 
This bill changes that.
  This water could easily be harnessed to provide low-cost, renewable 
energy to American families and help add to the increment of energy 
that we need in this country.
  Currently, small conduit hydropower is largely untapped and 
underutilized; and it's also, obviously, a clean-energy opportunity. 
The greatest barrier to unleashing the next generation of hydropower is 
not technological, because we have made great progress on the 
technological side. Unfortunately, it's regulatory.
  Currently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, otherwise known 
as FERC, maintains jurisdiction over small projects like those that I 
am talking about.
  Serving on the Natural Resources Committee, I've heard from folks 
across the country say that these regulations are too costly and too 
difficult to navigate. Obtaining an exception from FERC's permitting 
rules can take up to 6 months and cost nearly $50,000 for a local water 
district to pursue. That's unnecessary, and it's also a waste of 
valuable resources.
  Our bipartisan bill, again, would amend the Reclamation Act of 1939 
to create a permanent process for how local irrigation districts and 
water agencies develop this very valuable, renewable, carbon-free 
resource for reclamation facilities.
  By streamlining the process, the irrigation districts would be 
empowered to develop small conduit hydropower at no cost to the 
taxpayers. These projects typically are 5 megawatts and less.
  Harnessing the power of water already flowing through reclamation 
facilities would stimulate rural economies, reduce pumping costs for 
farmers who face those pumping costs every year.
  I am proud to stand with my colleagues who are supporting this 
legislation. I want to thank Congressman Tipton for this effort, 
because it helps us take advantage of existing facilities that are 
already in place to provide additional resource of power where we need 
it.
  If we want to strengthen our energy portfolio, let's start with the 
low-hanging fruit. This is low-hanging fruit.
  Let me just give you some numbers. In California there are 20 small 
hydro projects, should this legislation become law, that would be 
available to this process. Let me underline that: 20 projects in 
California that would qualify.
  In the Nation, the Bureau of Reclamation has determined that there 
are 373 projects throughout the country that potentially would qualify 
should this legislation become law.
  The bill does just that. I urge your support for H.R. 678.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the sponsor of 
this bipartisan legislation.
  Mr. TIPTON. I thank Chairman Hastings for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 678 is a commonsense piece of legislation to 
foster clean, renewable energy development, create rural jobs in 
America, and to do so without taxpayer cost, while returning revenues 
to the U.S. Treasury and, by all measures, should be considered low-
hanging fruit, as our fellow Member has just noted, for congressional 
action.
  There's been a lot of discussion on both sides of the aisle about the 
need to be able to pursue an all-of-the-above strategy. Hydropower, as 
the cleanest and most abundant natural energy source, should be at the 
forefront of any comprehensive natural energy policy.
  Increased conduit hydropower serves a number of purposes. It produces 
renewable and emissions-free energy that can be used to pump water or 
sell electricity into the grid; it can generate revenue for the 
irrigation district to be able to help pay for aging infrastructure 
costs and facilitate modernization; and it can create local jobs and 
generate revenue to the Federal Government.
  It's as simple as this poster demonstrates, as easy as putting a 
portable generator into moving canal water.
  Many irrigation districts and electrical utilities seek to develop 
hydropower on Bureau of Reclamation pipes, ditches and canals; but 
regulatory uncertainty and the threat of unnecessary bureaucratic 
requirements stand in the way.
  This legislation seeks to remove duplicative environmental analysis 
where doing so will considerably reduce costs for hydropower 
developers, while retaining the analysis necessary to protect valuable 
natural resources.
  While the Bureau of Reclamation has recently begun to inventory 
facilities suitable for small conduit hydropower generation and develop 
directives and standards to help promote that end, for far too long, 
duplicative review for small hydropower projects on existing, manmade 
facilities rendered these projects financially unfeasible, and 
significant uncertainty still remains.
  The generating units covered by H.R. 678 would be installed on 
entirely manmade waterways which have already received a full 
environmental review when they were built or rehabilitated. Any 
transmission associated with these projects that would result from the 
passage of this bill must still undergo full environmental review where 
they impact the environment. To require a lengthy review for dropping a 
small generator into a pipe simply defies logic, and we cannot pursue 
an all-of-the-above energy strategy if we continue business as usual.
  In addition to creating regulatory certainty and removing duplicative 
processes, this legislation authorizes power development at the 
agency's conduits to clear up multi-Federal agency confusion and 
further reduces the regulatory costs associated with hydropower 
development. This provision of the bill will provide the necessary 
statutory authority to be able to reduce litigation that the agency is 
sure to seek under the current framework which relies on broad 
authorities that do not specifically authorize hydropower development.
  This legislation ensures the continued use of the Bureau facilities, 
primarily for water supply and irrigation, and protects the interests 
of those maintaining and operating these facilities by offering them 
the first right of refusal to take advantage of small conduit energy 
development projects.
  Non-Federal operators know the details of the facilities best and are 
locally invested. As a result, it's only logical to offer them the 
first opportunity to develop this energy on facilities that they 
maintain.
  Additionally, those irrigation districts with preexisting 
arrangements with the Bureau or the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission for water delivery and hydropower development will not be 
disturbed by this bill.

[[Page H1881]]

  I'm proud to have the support of the Family Farm Alliance, the 
National Water Resources Association, the American Public Power 
Association, and the National Hydropower Association, among others.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to be able to make this public law and to start putting rural 
America back to work and developing clean, renewable energy.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague, except some 
of those projects were built in 1902 and through the 1970s. I think we 
do need NEPA protection.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SWALWELL of California. I would like to thank the ranking member 
for yielding me time.
  Madam Chair, I rise to object today to the consideration of this bill 
and rather propose that we stand in this House and we consider Mr. 
Hoyer's Make It In America package. We can come together and focus on 
real solutions that will get our economy moving again, and we should 
take up Mr. Hoyer's Make It In America package because it will 
strengthen our economy and create non-outsourceable jobs at home, here 
in America. The Make It In America package includes bills like mine, 
H.R. 1022, the Securing Energy Critical Elements and American Jobs Act 
of 2013 that will help secure America's place as a leader in science 
and technology with a 21st century workforce.
  What are rare Earth elements? Well, these are 17 chemical elements--
elements that, prior to coming to Congress and learning about how they 
affect our economy, I couldn't point out at pistol point--that are very 
critical to making cell phones, to making our electric cars, and also 
to making our antimissile systems. Despite the name, they are very 
abundant in our country and they can be extracted in an environmentally 
safe manner.
  So what's the problem? Well, today, 97 percent of rare Earth elements 
are extracted and exported from China. Eighty percent of rare Earth 
magnets and almost 100 percent of related metal production are coming 
from China. In 2010, China temporarily cut off rare Earth supplies to 
Japan, the European Union, and the United States, highlighting the 
potential consequences to the United States for relying so heavily upon 
China for rare Earth production that is so crucial and critical to what 
we can create here in America.
  My district includes northern Silicon Valley, home of silicon chip 
processing, home of the technology boom, home of the Internet, and also 
home of many advanced manufacturing production sites. H.R. 1022, the 
Securing Energy Critical Elements in American Jobs Act of 2013 aims to 
help reduce our dependence on China for these critical elements and 
instead make it here in America. But in order for us to do this, we 
need to invest in developing our technical workforce here at home.
  Currently, the United States lacks the necessary technical expertise 
to ensure a reliable supply of energy critical elements. My bill, H.R. 
1022, enlists the talents of our university students and encourages 
them to develop the technical expertise necessary to secure America's 
access to these elements. We need to ensure that the best and brightest 
minds in our area and our country have the tools and support they need 
to support America's access to energy critical elements. H.R. 1022 will 
promote collaboration and research opportunities in the fields of 
energy-critical elements for students at higher institutions, and 
coordination of Federal agencies to promote a stable supply of energy-
critical elements.
  We also have in my congressional district what's called the ``Tri-
Valley,'' or, as I like to call it, the ``I Valley,'' or the 
``Innovation Valley.'' This area also would rely upon energy-critical 
elements. And as the ranking member said, we have an opportunity today 
to work in a bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, I do not see us doing 
that. So I would conclude by asking that we come together.
  Also, in my bill there's a loan guarantee for companies with new 
processing and refining technologies. The Securing Energy Critical 
Elements and American Jobs Act of 2013 will help to spur private 
investment in companies on the forefront of this critical field. It's 
very important that we have the Federal Government at the very 
inception, in the beginning, providing the research and Federal 
funding. But most important is to get it out into private industry. And 
that's what this bill calls upon.
  So, again, I urge my colleagues to stop wasting time with partisan 
bills like this today. Instead, let's come together to train and secure 
a 21st century workforce. Let's harness our own resources. Let's Make 
It In America, and we can help all Americans make it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, before I yield time to 
the gentlelady from Wyoming, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I find the gentleman's argument on the other side rather striking 
because he's talking about American-made jobs and another piece of 
legislation not associated with this. And I would just point out, what 
could be more American-made jobs than putting hydropower facilities on 
American soil? That creates jobs. That's what this bill is all about.
  And the second point, the gentleman mentioned the rare Earth issue 
that we have. Last Congress, we passed legislation here so we could 
utilize the known rare Earth supplies we have in this country, and it 
was the other body, controlled by the gentleman's own party, that 
didn't act on it. And he sounds like it is a big, big issue now. I 
suspect we may have, Madam Chairman, that legislation again in front of 
us, and I would hope that we could elicit the gentleman's support when 
that bill comes to the floor.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a valuable member of the 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I rise in support of H.R. 678, of which I'm an original 
cosponsor, and I want to thank Representative Tipton, Chairman 
McClintock, and Chairman Hastings for their hard work on this bill, 
which unlocks significant hydropower development potential in my home 
State of Wyoming.
  Congress and the Bureau of Reclamation have over the years created 
hundreds of canals and pipelines to serve water uses in the West. Most 
of these conduits were never envisioned as power sources because the 
technology wasn't there or it wasn't yet cost-effective. But technology 
has changed, and now it's feasible to harness and channel the energy 
byproduct of these water flows. The Bureau of Reclamation has 
identified 373 conduits in the West with hydropower potential. Wyoming 
leads the States with 121 of these sites and is second only to Colorado 
in terms of the potential energy output. In Wyoming alone, the 
estimated potential is 82 million kilowatt hours annually from a clean, 
renewable energy source. Unleashing this potential, while still 
protecting the environment and end water users, is what this bill is 
all about.

  First, H.R. 678 eliminates bureaucratic confusion by expressly 
authorizing the Bureau to oversee hydropower development in its 
conduits.
  Second, it directs the Bureau of Reclamation to exempt small 
hydropower projects from duplicative environmental paperwork 
requirements. We're talking about placing small power generators in 
canals and ditches where the ground has already been disturbed. Fences 
have gone up. Environmental analysis has been conducted, sometimes 
multiple times because of the Bureau's contract renewals with some 
water users. Requiring duplicative environmental analysis on 
preexisting conduits makes no sense, provides no environmental benefit, 
and imposes more costs and bureaucratic uncertainty on potential 
developers.
  Third, the bill protects water supply and delivery as the primary and 
fundamental priority for these conduits, whose vital mission will not 
be disrupted.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, jobs-creating bill.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentlewoman from 
California has 18 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington 
has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page H1882]]

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. I thank the gentlewoman for giving me the opportunity 
to speak on this matter.
  H.R. 678 could easily be a bipartisan, noncontroversial bill. But 
Republicans insist on including an unnecessary provision to waive 
environmental review. It sets the wrong precedent. Nearly 100 days have 
passed since the 113th Congress has been sworn in, and not one bill has 
been brought to the floor that would have a measurable effect of 
reinvigorating our manufacturing sector. In fact, quite the opposite 
has happened.
  Democrats have announced the Make It In America initiative to focus 
on four areas to help our economy grow. In order to strengthen the 
economy, this Congress must: adopt and pursue a comprehensive 
manufacturing strategy; promote the export of U.S. goods; encourage 
innovation; and train a 21st century workforce. In addition to these 
four core components, we must work together to address the equally 
important task of getting our small business owners access to capital 
they so desperately need. Without capital, our businesses are stagnant, 
cannot invest in their own growth, and will not hire that unemployed 
person who has been searching for a job for months.
  We must do more to get the financial institutions back to lending in 
this country. Now it's up to Republicans and Democrats to work together 
to enact and pass Make It In America legislation and help secure 
America as the world leader when it comes to job creation and when it 
comes to innovation. When it comes to hydropower, it's very important 
for us to understand yes, we need more hydropower, yes, we need 
innovation, yes, we need to make sure the small and large hydropower 
actually moves forward. But doing it at the expense of the environment 
by waiving environmental review is just not the right way to do it.

                              {time}  1410

  Many people in these Chambers speak constantly of making sure that we 
don't put things on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. 
Every time we waive environmental review, every time that we don't do 
things carefully, we move in a direction where it takes sometimes a 
year or 2 or 3 to go in the wrong direction, it takes decades for us to 
correct those environmental problems.
  So environmental review should be part of the process and, yes, it 
should be streamlined and, yes, we need to make sure that we do things 
in a fashion that does put people back to work, but we have to do it 
carefully and responsibly.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), another valuable 
member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Chairman Hastings.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 678, the Bureau of 
Reclamation and Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act 
of 2013. This legislation was one of Representative Tipton's and my top 
priorities in the Natural Resources Committee last Congress, so I am 
pleased to join him again as an original cosponsor and appreciate that 
the House is taking up the legislation so quickly in the 113th 
Congress.
  Our country is failing to fully tap its hydroelectric power 
generation potential. The Federal Government owns over 47,000 miles of 
canals, laterals, drains, pipeline and tunnels throughout the West that 
are perfectly suitable for hydropower production, but hardworking 
irrigators and power providers in our districts, already operating and 
maintaining this infrastructure on behalf of the Federal Government, 
cannot install hydropower generators because government regulations and 
bureaucratic confusion are making it cost prohibitive.
  H.R. 678 will clear away these bureaucratic obstacles that stand 
between our Nation and thousands of megawatts of clean, cheap, 
abundant, and reliable hydroelectricity. The resulting development will 
create jobs in rural communities hit hardest by the recession, increase 
our country's renewable energy portfolio, and even generate revenue for 
the Federal Treasury.
  The Members of this body opposing this legislation claim it could 
cause harm to the environment. To be clear, this bill only allows for 
development on existing irrigation canals and ditch systems, not free-
flowing rivers and streams. These conduits have been in place for 
years, do not contain any endangered wildlife or fish, and were subject 
to environmental analysis at the time of construction or 
rehabilitation.
  On the poster to my left is a clear example of what we are talking 
about. Folks, it's concrete. It's been sitting here with running water. 
I don't see the need and I hope you don't see the need for a NEPA 
environmental assessment. This canal is in the western part of my 
congressional district. We have miles of this type of infrastructure 
throughout the State, including the Central Arizona Project. It 
provides my constituents with the water necessary to live in the desert 
and even grow a good portion of this Nation's produce.
  The experts on the ground say we are sitting on a hydropower gold 
mine waiting for the needed clarifications and streamlining that will 
cut costs and make this program more attractive. There are over 26 
locations just like this one in my State alone--mostly in Yuma, Pinal, 
and western Maricopa Counties--that are suitable for this development. 
The Agri-Business Council of Arizona believes its members could produce 
enough low-cost clean energy to power nearly 5,000 homes simply by 
installing these small hydropower generators. That is a huge economic 
impact for the small rural communities these irrigators serve. They 
would provide a real economic boost and lower energy costs.
  There are many solutions to our Nation's energy crisis, but 
hydropower is clearly part of our all-of-the-above plan. It already 
accounts for about 75 percent of this country's total renewable 
electricity generation, and we haven't even begun yet.
  Early this Congress, the House unanimously passed the Hydropower 
Regulatory Efficiency Act, which promotes development on privately 
owned infrastructure. We should do the same today on Congressman 
Tipton's and my legislation that does the same for publicly owned 
infrastructure.
  Congress would be doing the American people an injustice if we didn't 
move swiftly on this bill. Hydropower must be an integral component of 
the long-term all-of-the-above energy strategy in Arizona and for our 
Nation, and this bill will allow rural western communities to play a 
major role in that future. I will continue to work with Congressman 
Tipton to ensure that this bill not only passes the House this year but 
gets through the Senate and is sent to the President's desk for his 
signature. Folks, it is that simple: commonsense utilization of 
infrastructure we already have.

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chairman, I am glad that there are some visual 
effects here. It is important. But I don't know how all the canal and 
for the release, were there any levee issues. So it is important to 
have a NEPA review.
  I would now like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman 
from California, Congressman Takano.
  Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentlelady from my own home State of 
California for yielding time.
  Madam Chair, this bill is something that Democrats could support if 
proper environmental review were not made a problem. I really believe 
this Congress needs to get back to getting serious about discussing how 
we're going to put our country back to work.
  The national unemployment rate is 7.6 percent, and in my own district 
it's nearly 11 percent. The Congress should be focused on putting 
Americans back to work. Democrats have a plan. It's called Make It In 
America. This plan, put together by Mr. Hoyer from Maryland, addresses 
the most pressing crisis that our Nation faces, the jobs crisis, and it 
will put Americans back to work. It has four main points:
  Number one, adopt and pursue a national manufacturing strategy;
  Number two, promote the export of American goods;
  Number three, encourage manufacturers to bring jobs and innovation 
back to America;
  Number four, train and secure a 21st century workforce.
  We have the tools at our disposal to do these things.

[[Page H1883]]

  The legislation that I have introduced that is a part of the Make It 
In America plan is called the Jobs Skills for America's Students Act. 
It encourages partnerships between employers and educational 
institutions. Employers who participate are able to receive a $2,000 
tax credit per student participating in a qualified technical training 
and skills program, with a total credit amount cap of $10,000 per year.
  Many of America's fastest growing industries, industries that will 
benefit from the Make It In America plan, like advanced manufacturing 
and clean energy, require a highly skilled workforce. These industries 
struggle to find workers who possess the technical training that they 
require. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that 
600,000 manufacturing jobs remain unfilled due to a lack of qualified 
candidates. Just today, we learned from the Department of Labor that 
there are 3.9 million job openings in America, the most in almost 5 
years. Many of these jobs are unfilled because of the lack of training.
  The Job Skills for America's Students Act partners key industries 
with community colleges and other programs to offer students the 
opportunity to obtain the training they need to thrive in the field of 
their choice. To grow our middle class and create a workforce for the 
future, we must close the skills gap and we must make training 
affordable and effective.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to work with Democrats to pass each 
piece of the Make It In America legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to another member of the Natural Resources Committee, the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).
  Mr. DAINES. Chairman Hastings, thanks to you and to Mr. Tipton for 
the opportunity to speak in support of H.R. 678 today. This bill 
reflects an issue that is of true importance to my home State of 
Montana.
  You know, when most people think of our rivers and waterways in 
Montana, they think of celebrities like Brad Pitt standing in the 
Little Blackfoot River casting for trout in the movie ``A River Runs 
Through It.''
  Back in Montana, we rely on our rivers and our natural resources as 
an important part of our way of life. However, I'm here today to focus 
on a very significant benefit of our waterways, and that's hydropower. 
Our waterways help power our homes, they irrigate our farms and 
ranches, and they water our livestock. In Montana, about a third of our 
energy comes from hydropower, generating 1,100 megawatts per year. To 
put this in perspective, 1 megawatt will power nearly 600 homes. Six of 
Montana's 10 largest generating plants run on hydroelectric power. But 
we're not here to talk about streams and rivers; we're here to talk 
about man-made canals and manmade waterways.
  The Bureau of Reclamation has constructed 32 such projects in 
Montana, and with the improved ability to harness the energy of moving 
water in conduits, the Rural Jobs Act would allow each of these 
projects to generate more than 26 million kilowatts per hour of power. 
There is no reason red tape should tie up that much alternative energy 
potential.
  This bill will help lower energy costs, create Montana jobs, and 
provide our Nation with a sustainable, renewable source of energy. This 
is common sense. I believe that H.R. 678, the Rural Jobs Act, is 
important for our country, and I strongly support its passage.

                              {time}  1420

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), another 
member of the Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. LaMALFA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, once in awhile a bill comes through that even makes 
great sense in Washington, D.C., and this is a really commonsense 
measure. I live on a farm in northern California where I'm surrounded 
by canals and ditches and water moving all about in my daily life in 
producing rice, and so there's all these opportunities we would have on 
installations like that. But we're talking today about Bureau 
installations to put renewable power in place that, according to this 
chart here, would affect many, many States with many installations and 
provide many American jobs.
  The opportunities of this bill, just putting the bureaucracy and the 
red tape aside, for a commonsense measure to take advantage of an 
opportunity to do something that, on the heels of March Madness here, 
really, installations would be no harm, no foul. These facilities 
already exist. It would be easy to put in place. If we could put aside 
the red tape of NEPA requirements, it would be unnecessary.
  As I drive up and down my canals and my ditches, again, no harm, no 
foul here. We're looking at an easy installation that would be a very 
valuable thing for, where I come from in California, a renewable energy 
portfolio, which is 33 percent kicking in. It's pretty hard to find 
renewable energy, especially when most of those sources are required to 
be solar or wind.
  Hydropower is a very important component in my part of the State 
here. We have so much water that we can take advantage of to produce, 
why aren't we doing it in the commonsense areas?
  H.R. 678--and I commend the chairman and Mr. Tipton for bringing this 
bill forward. This is, again, something that's going to be very 
positive for rural America, for our renewable energy portfolio, which 
is affecting, I think, a lot of the country these days, because 
renewable energy in most cases is very expensive. So the same people 
that are saying we can't do this without NEPA, the same people that are 
saying we can't have fracturing, which is bringing very cost-effective 
electricity to many, many Americans now, the same people that want to 
remove hydroelectric dams in my part of the district in northern 
California are now wanting to oppose a commonsense measure like this.
  Sometimes I just don't get it, but this one here is really an 
opportunity to move forward with opportunity for our rural States, for 
rural areas to produce these projects with American know-how and more 
American jobs. We hear a lot about that here today. Let's put Americans 
to work with commonsense, reachable measures that are environmentally 
sound and certainly good for our economy.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, may I inquire how many minutes we have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 12 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. May I inquire of my colleague how many other 
speakers he has?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am prepared to close general debate if 
the gentlelady is prepared to close.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Chair, as I've said before, this is a good bill with one bad 
provision in it, and that is the NEPA waiver that is not needed. It is 
not good environmental policy, and it is not good energy policy.
  NEPA is not just red tape. It is a chance for the Federal Government 
to consider alternatives, to listen to not only the opponent, but get 
input from everybody impacted and to consider any possible impacts to 
the area.
  At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to fit the one 
flaw in this bill. I hope my amendment is adopted and we'll send this 
to the Senate for passage.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  This debate has been rather interesting, because it sounds like on 
the floor there is widespread support for the concept of this bill. And 
why shouldn't there be? After all, there are 47,000 miles of canals and 
ditches that could be utilized for energy production.
  There seems to be one problem, and that problem revolves around NEPA, 
the National Environmental Policy Act, which was put in place, by the 
way, in 1969. I'm not going do say there's a direct correlation between 
NEPA and the lack of Bureau of Reclamation projects, but it is very 
interesting that most of the great projects that were built in the West 
were built prior to NEPA.

[[Page H1884]]

  There were environmental statutes on the book, Madam Chairwoman, back 
then, and they are all satisfied. I happen to live in central 
Washington. There are two great projects in central Washington--the 
Columbia Basin Project and the Yakima River Project; in total, probably 
over a million acres of irrigated land.
  Here is the truism, Madam Chairwoman. What we are talking about are 
our facilities where water is running through them, water is running 
downhill. We all know that water running downhill creates a certain 
amount of energy. All we want to do is capture that energy. With the 
prior chart that the gentleman from California put up, most of the 
States that will benefit by this are from the West. That means that we 
can make the desert bloom even more in the West if we utilize these 
facilities.
  Finally, I just want to make one other observation. My good friend 
from California was saying that, okay, this is like a bill we had last 
year. We passed it; the Senate didn't do anything. Well, I would just 
remind the gentlelady, and she should know this, and I know she does, 
we are two distinct bodies, the House and the Senate. If they have a 
different view, for goodness sake, pass something. If it's different 
than our view, then we'll figure out how to come together. But to 
simply say, this is a good piece of legislation but we don't like NEPA, 
therefore, don't pass it because the Senate won't take it up, is not 
doing our job.
  Madam Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. There are some 
amendments that will be following. We can get into more detail on 
those. But I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 
678, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and 
Rural Jobs Act, of which I am a cosponsor, and I want to thank Mr. 
Tipton for his efforts.
   Expanding access to clean, affordable, reliable energy is one 
challenge facing our Nation today. And while visionaries are looking 
for solutions, outdated bureaucracy is stifling innovation.
   Though its environmental impacts are negligible, small hydropower 
development remains a financial challenge.
   By exempting small hydropower from NEPA requirements, this bill 
substantially reduces administrative costs and could help stimulate the 
economy of rural America at no cost to taxpayers.
   Let me be clear, Mr. Chair, this bill, like hydropower legislation I 
introduced last Congress, is limited in scope.
   We're not talking about waiving environmental regulations for large, 
new infrastructure projects; we're talking about streamlining the 
process of developing clean, renewable energy on existing conduits.
   According to a Bureau of Reclamation's March 2012 report on conduit 
hydropower development, more than 30 irrigation sites in my home State 
of Nebraska contain more than 5,000 kilowatts of potential hydropower 
development.
   This bill empowers local irrigation districts to produce emissions-
free energy which could be used by producers or sold to help pay for 
aging infrastructure costs.
   There are no government mandates and no hidden costs, Mr. Chair.
   Sustainable, affordable energy is critical to growing our economy 
and this is commonsense policymaking.
  The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 678

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Bureau of Reclamation Small 
     Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION.

       Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 
     U.S.C. 485h(c)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary is authorized to enter into 
     contracts to furnish water'' and inserting the following:
       ``(1) The Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts 
     to furnish water'';
       (2) by striking ``(1) shall'' and inserting ``(A) shall'';
       (3) by striking ``(2) shall'' and inserting ``(B) shall'';
       (4) by striking ``respecting the terms of sales of electric 
     power and leases of power privileges shall be in addition and 
     alternative to any authority in existing laws relating to 
     particular projects'' and inserting ``respecting the sales of 
     electric power and leases of power privileges shall be an 
     authorization in addition to and alternative to any authority 
     in existing laws related to particular projects, including 
     small conduit hydropower development''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) When carrying out this subsection, the Secretary 
     shall first offer the lease of power privilege to an 
     irrigation district or water users association operating the 
     applicable transferred work, or to the irrigation district or 
     water users association receiving water from the applicable 
     reserved work. The Secretary shall determine a reasonable 
     time frame for the irrigation district or water users 
     association to accept or reject a lease of power privilege 
     offer.
       ``(3) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to small conduit 
     hydropower development, excluding siting of associated 
     transmission on Federal lands, under this subsection.
       ``(4) The Power Resources Office of the Bureau of 
     Reclamation shall be the lead office of small conduit 
     hydropower activities conducted under this subsection.
       ``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall obligate the Western 
     Area Power Administration, the Bonneville Power 
     Administration, or the Southwestern Power Administration to 
     purchase or market any of the power produced by the 
     facilities covered under this subsection and none of the 
     costs associated with production or delivery of such power 
     shall be assigned to project purposes for inclusion in 
     project rates.
       ``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall alter or impede the 
     delivery and management of water by Bureau of Reclamation 
     facilities, as water used for conduit hydropower generation 
     shall be deemed incidental to use of water for the original 
     project purposes. Lease of power privilege shall be made only 
     when, in the judgment of the Secretary, the exercise of the 
     lease will not be incompatible with the purposes of the 
     project or division involved, nor shall it create any 
     unmitigated financial or physical impacts to the project or 
     division involved, and shall be on such terms and conditions 
     as in the judgment of the Secretary in consultation with the 
     appropriate irrigation district or water users association, 
     will adequately protect the planning, design, construction, 
     operation, maintenance, and other interests of the United 
     States and the project or division involved.
       ``(7) Nothing in this subsection shall alter or affect any 
     existing agreements for the development of conduit hydropower 
     projects or disposition of revenues.
       ``(8) In this subsection:
       ``(A) Conduit.--The term `conduit' means any Bureau of 
     Reclamation tunnel, canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, 
     or similar manmade water conveyance that is operated for the 
     distribution of water for agricultural, municipal, or 
     industrial consumption and not primarily for the generation 
     of electricity.
       ``(B) Irrigation district.--The term `irrigation district' 
     means any irrigation, water conservation, multicounty water 
     conservation district, or any separate public entity composed 
     of two or more such districts and jointly exercising powers 
     of its member districts.
       ``(C) Reserved work.--The term `reserved work' means any 
     conduit that is included in project works the care, 
     operation, and maintenance of which has been reserved by the 
     Secretary, through the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
     Reclamation.
       ``(D) Transferred work.--The term `transferred work' means 
     any conduit that is included in project works the care, 
     operation, and maintenance of which has been transferred to a 
     legally organized water users association or irrigation 
     district.
       ``(E) Small conduit hydropower.--The term `small conduit 
     hydropower' means a facility capable of producing 5 megawatts 
     or less of electric capacity.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
those received for printing in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose dated at least 1 day before the day of 
consideration of the amendment and pro forma amendments for the purpose 
of debate.
  Each amendment so received may be offered only by the Member who 
submitted it for printing or a designee and shall be considered as read 
if printed.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Tipton

  Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, strike lines 14 through 18, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) The Bureau of Reclamation shall apply its categorical 
     exclusion process under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to small conduit hydropower 
     development under this subsection, excluding siting of 
     associated transmission facilities on Federal lands.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H1885]]

  Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairwoman, I offer this amendment in response to 
the concerns of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and at the 
request of the broad range of irrigation districts, water conservation 
and conservancy districts, and public utilities that are supporting 
this bill and this commonsense amendment. I'm pleased to have the 
support of my Democratic colleague Jim Costa on this effort and the 
support of the National Hydropower Association, the Family Farm 
Alliance, the National Water Resources Association, and the American 
Public Power Association.
  This amendment removes the NEPA waiver in the bill and instead 
codifies the application of the Bureau of Reclamation's categorical 
exclusion process under the National Environmental Policy Act for small 
hydropower projects covered by this bill.
  This alternative provision would still ensure streamlining the 
approval process for clean renewable energy and help provide certainty 
for investors and job creators, while providing flexibility to the 
Bureau to adjust to changing circumstances moving forward. By advancing 
these projects under the Bureau's categorical exclusion process, we 
ensure that all of the elements in that process are retained, including 
agency discretion for examining extraordinary circumstances. In 
addition, the amendment specifically mentions codifying the categorical 
exclusion process for small conduit hydropower.
  This is an approach that is supported by Trout Unlimited in its March 
19, 2013 letter, which states:

       Congress should direct BOR to create a categorical 
     exclusion for small conduit hydropower.

  That's exactly what this amendment does.
  The use of a categorical exclusion for small conduit hydropower 
development can mean the difference between private investment in a 
public good with a multitude of benefits, and unreasonable financial 
costs and lengthy delays that lead to untapped potential.
  My hope is that this amendment, which is broadly supported by the 
diverse range of groups invested in the bill who are committed to 
ensuring continued environmental protection, will assuage any 
reservations about this effort to promote clean renewable energy and 
allow us to be able to move forward united in our support.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIPTON. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for offering this 
amendment. I think it adds a great deal to all the work that you and 
your bipartisan cosponsors had put into this, and I support the 
amendment.
  Mr. TIPTON. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to Tipton 
amendment No. 3 for the Congressional Record.
  We are glad to see the author of the legislation recognizes that in 
developing conduit hydropower projects, NEPA is not the problem and 
that the flat NEPA waiver included in the base bill is not good policy.
  We also welcome the apparent realization that insisting on an 
unwarranted and unwise NEPA waiver has been the anchor that has held 
this bill back and prohibited this largely noncontroversial measure 
from becoming law.
  But to be clear, this amendment only tweaks language that should be 
removed from the bill entirely. The Tipton amendment circles around the 
edge of the problem while my amendment, which I'll offer in a few 
minutes, solves the problem by removing the waiver completely so we can 
move forward and support the bill.
  Better yet, if the waiver is removed, there is no need for the 
artificially low cap on the size of these projects contained in the 
base bill, which is why my amendment will increase the cap from 5 to 15 
megawatts. The Tipton amendment does nothing to raise the cap on these 
projects.
  The Tipton amendment is a significant step in the right direction for 
the bill's sponsor, and we will not oppose it and will work with the 
sponsor and Senate to perfect the language. However, my amendment, 
which we'll see momentarily, is better energy policy and better 
environmental policy. The amendment is a start, this particular 
amendment, but I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment to 
really fix this legislation.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COSTA. Madam Chair, the legislative process is a two way street. 
It's about listening and incorporating the concerns of our colleagues 
to improve a bill. This amendment does just that.
  Environmental review is important, but it needs to be an appropriate 
level of review for the project involved. On these types of projects, 
there isn't much chance of damage, so there shouldn't be much cost 
involved for review.
  Reclamation recognizes this and has made great strides in easing the 
way for small hydro development on the agency's projects. However, 
potential legal conflicts have prevented them from fully implementing 
this process.
  This amendment would bridge the legal gap and clarify questions that 
have kept the Bureau from moving forward. Specifically, the amendment 
would codify the steps Reclamation is already taking to ease the way 
for responsible small conduit hydropower development while also 
resolving potential litigation concerns.
  This is a commonsense amendment that has been endorsed by American 
Rivers, Trout Unlimited, the Family Farm Alliance, the National Water 
Resources Association, and the National Hydropower Association.
  I urge you to support this amendment and support the underlying bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I rise to offer the Napolitano 
amendment identified as amendment No. 1 in the Congressional Record.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, strike lines 14 through 18 (and redesignate 
     subsequent provisions accordingly).
       Page 7, line 13, strike ``5'' and insert ``15''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, my amendment is very simple. It would 
strike the NEPA, known as the National Environmental Policy Act, waiver 
and give the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of 
Reclamation, the authority to apply Reclamation's directives and 
standards for lease of power privilege projects, which is known as 
LOPP.
  The Bureau of Reclamation on its own accord has applied a categorical 
exclusion, known as CE, to small conduit hydropower projects. In fact, 
their CE went even further. It can be used to expedite a wide variety 
of low-impact hydropower projects built on Reclamation's water 
infrastructure. The main point of the legislation is to clarify that 
Reclamation has jurisdiction over the development of conduit projects 
on Reclamation facilities.
  As I have mentioned before, the sponsor's amendment only tweaks the 
language that should be removed from the bill entirely. The Tipton 
amendment tinkers around the edge of the problem while my amendment 
solves the problem by removing the waiver completely.
  As a compromise, my amendment also increases the megawatt limitation 
from 5 to 15 megawatts for small conduit hydro projects. This would 
allow for more power to be created at those existing facilities. 
Without the NEPA waiver, the agency can utilize its own categorical 
exclusion, which has no megawatt limitation, and therefore makes the 
cap on this legislation arbitrary. The NEPA waiver is unnecessary, and 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
  Let me point out that it is my understanding that there have been 
some projects built under the current--not the CE--that have taken a 
lot more time and have been costly. And with a categorical exclusion, 
there will be a cut not only in the cost but in time because it only 
involves staff and the cost will be diminished.

[[Page H1886]]

  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Chair, I just want to make a point 
because at the end of the general debate, I brought up the issue of 
NEPA that everybody says this is a wonderful bill except this part. Of 
course, the gentlelady's amendment strikes the NEPA waiver, which I 
pointed out again at the end of the general debate there seems to be 
somewhat cause and effect of having NEPA and having projects go 
forward.
  But here is the important point on this, Madam Chairman, from my 
point of view: this bill deals with the Bureau of Reclamation, the 
Bureau of Reclamation that built ditches and conduits out of concrete 
generally. Again, I spoke of the Columbia Basin Project in my district 
and the Yakima Project in my district, and virtually all of the ditches 
are concrete. That means that the land has already been disturbed in 
order to put these facilities in place.
  What the gentleman from Colorado's bill does is simply put a power 
source within the existing ditches that have gone through environmental 
review. Why, for goodness' sakes, would you have to jump through more 
hoops, unless you wanted to slow the process down? Why you'd want to do 
that, I don't know, because the end result of this is probably less 
expensive energy. It's certainly American jobs, and it probably adds to 
a growing economy. Yet there seems to be some idea that only NEPA can 
save us from all of that.
  Well, I reject that, and that's why I oppose the gentlelady's 
amendment because it would waive that requirement.
  Once again, Madam Chairman, this is on existing facilities that have 
gone through environmental review. It doesn't need to jump through that 
hoop one more time.
  With that, I urge opposition to this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairman, we've heard talk today about creating 
American jobs on American soil to be able to create American energy. No 
bill better achieves that end than H.R. 678.
  The Napolitano amendment, by striking the provision altogether that 
she is offering, will allow no alternative to be able to streamline the 
projects' approval process, and this amendment literally will ensure 
that small investment in small hydropower projects would not be able to 
be achieved. I think it's important to note we're spending $1.750 
trillion per year in regulatory costs in this Nation.
  Now, are all regulations bad? No, they aren't. But redundant 
regulations which drive up costs, which inhibit our ability to be able 
to create jobs to be able to put Americans back to work and to be able 
to create clean, affordable energy should not stand in the way.
  Let's put Americans back to work. Let's work together.
  The purpose of my amendment is to be able to reach a reasonable 
compromise between the two opposing ideas in regards to the NEPA 
provision on manmade projects. As Chairman Hastings just ably noted, 
these are manmade ditches. We have no impediment that's going to be 
looked at when it comes to endangered species, be it fish or wildlife. 
This has already gone through the desired process of environmental 
review. So does it make good common sense to say that an area that's 
been reviewed that was made by men does not have to go through an 
additional review process in order to be able to create those jobs and 
to be able to create American energy? I think that's a sensible 
approach for us to be able to pursue.
  With that, I would urge opposition and defeat of the Napolitano 
amendment.
  Let's get this job done and let's truly work to get Americans back to 
work.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, this amendment strikes the NEPA 
exclusion for small hydroelectric projects. That's the principal point 
of the bill.
  As the Subcommittee on Water and Power has repeatedly been told, it 
is precisely this process that has doubled the cost of small hydro 
projects simply making them cost prohibitive. This is akin to having a 
full environmental review done when you build your home and then having 
to do it all over again when you want to install a microwave in your 
kitchen.

                              {time}  1440

  One witness testified that installing 15 very small hydropower units 
on a nearby Bureau of Reclamation canal system would cost over 
$450,000, or $30,000 per unit, for additional NEPA reviews that would 
ultimately conclude that there is no environmental impact.
  That means the paperwork costs would be greater than the actual 
capital cost of the hydropower units. No one in his right mind would 
invest in a project with this kind of requirement. It simply makes no 
sense, and that's the primary reason conduit hydropower development is 
not happening.
  It is true that the Bureau of Reclamation instituted a new NEPA 
Categorical Exclusion for small hydroelectric projects back in 
September of 2012, but 6 months later, this new policy has resulted in 
precisely zero new projects moving forward. Even if projects were 
moving forward today, this is only an administrative change and could 
be changed back at any time.
  In addition, an expert witness who happens to be a litigator 
testified to our subcommittee that the current administrative process 
is full of legal holes that could be exploited by those wanting to stop 
these projects. Investors need certainty, and that requires a statutory 
and not an administrative fix.
  I appreciate and support the gentlelady's effort to allow the Bureau 
to consider units with 15 megawatts, but I would remind her that zero 
projects times 15 megawatts still equals zero electricity. Indeed, 
there are practically no projects in this range to begin with, which 
makes the amendment somewhat disingenuous. Even if there were, if the 
current regulatory scheme isn't allowing 5-megawatt units, it certainly 
won't allow 15-megawatt units. That's the problem.
  Mr. Tipton's bill provides an automatic exclusion from this 
duplicative and destructive NEPA requirement. The gentlelady's 
amendment takes it back out again. That's not constructive and it's not 
helpful.
  To assure us that one supports small hydropower but opposes the 
automatic exclusion in Mr. Tipton's bill reminds me of Leo Tolstoy's 
observation when he said:

       I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, 
     and all the while, I assure him and anyone who will listen 
     that I am sympathetic for his plight and I am willing to do 
     everything I can to help--except by getting off his back.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Tipton

  Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, line 4, insert ``(A)'' after ``(2)''.
       Page 4, lines 8 and 10, strike ``work'' and insert 
     ``conduit''.
       Page 4, line 13, after ``offer'' insert ``for a small 
     conduit hydropower project''.
       Page 4, after line 13, insert the following:
       ``(B) If the irrigation district or water users association 
     elects not accept a lease of power privilege offer under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall offer the lease of 
     power privilege to other parties in accordance with this 
     subsection.''.

[[Page H1887]]

       Page 4, line 21, after ``hydropower'' insert ``policy and 
     procedure-setting''.
       Page 5, line 18 strike ``involved, and'' and all that 
     follows though line 25 and insert the following ``involved. 
     The Secretary shall notify and consult with the irrigation 
     district or water users association operating the transferred 
     conduit before offering the lease of power privilege and 
     shall prescribe terms and conditions that will adequately 
     protect the planning, design, construction, operation, 
     maintenance, and other interests of the United States and the 
     project or division involved.''.
       Page 6, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(8) Nothing in this subsection shall alter or affect any 
     existing preliminary permit, license, or exemption issued by 
     the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under Part I of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792, et seq.) or any project for 
     which an application has been filed with the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission as of the date of the enactment of the 
     Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development 
     and Rural Jobs Act.''.
       Page 6, line 5, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(9)''.
       Page 6, strike lines 14 through 20, and insert the 
     following:
       (B) Irrigation district.--The term ``irrigation district'' 
     means any irrigation, water conservation or conservancy, 
     multicounty water conservation or conservancy district, or 
     any separate public entity composed of two or more such 
     districts and jointly exercising powers of its member 
     districts.
       Page 6, line 21, strike ``work'' and insert ``conduit''.
       Page 6, line 22, strike ``work'' and insert ``conduit''.
       Page 7, line 3, strike ``work'' and insert ``conduit''.
       Page 7, line 4, strike ``work'' and insert ``conduit''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TIPTON. Madam Chairwoman, I offer this amendment to provide 
technical corrections and to eliminate drafting inconsistencies between 
this year's bill and its counterpart in the 112th Congress.
  This amendment reflects changes sought by the Bureau of Reclamation 
with respect to definitions, to more accurately cover intended matters 
and properly coincide with existing law and Bureau regulations. 
Furthermore, the amendment clarifies that nothing in the bill affects 
existing arrangements between irrigation and water districts and the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As you say, I think this is a technical amendment. It adds to the 
bill, and I support it.
  Mr. TIPTON. With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The gentleman's amendment makes technical changes 
that staff has brought to our attention, and it addresses a few of the 
administration's concerns.
  The amendment clarifies that the projects already permitted under 
FERC would not see any regulatory uncertainty with this bill's passage. 
We are also in agreement with the amendment changes that require 
greater consultation with irrigation districts and water user 
associations prior to the approval of the Lease of Power Privilege.
  We have no objections to this technical amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the unfinished 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 232, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 94]

                               AYES--189

     Andrews
     Barber
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--232

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack

[[Page H1888]]


     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bass
     Castor (FL)
     Collins (NY)
     Franks (AZ)
     Hastings (FL)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Lynch
     Markey
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Walz

                              {time}  1514

  Messrs. HENSARLING, LaMALFA, STEWART, and YOUNG of Alaska changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. CLARKE, and Messrs. DOGGETT 
and CICILLINE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. COLLINS of New York. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 94, H.R. 678, 
Agreeing to the Amendment, had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''
  The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 678) to authorize all Bureau of Reclamation conduit facilities 
for hydropower development under Federal Reclamation law, and for other 
purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 140, she reported the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I'm opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Garamendi moves to recommit the bill H.R. 678 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 3. MAKE IT IN AMERICA.

       Any lease of power privilege offered pursuant to this Act 
     or the amendments made by this Act shall require, to the 
     extent practicable, that all materials used for conduit 
     hydropower generation be manufactured in the United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I suspect that, Mr. Speaker, all of us would want to 
see more jobs in America. The great American manufacturing sector over 
the last 20 years has lost about 9 million jobs. Twenty-five years ago, 
no one throughout this world would doubt that the greatest 
manufacturing Nation in the world was America. Twenty-five years later, 
and 9 million jobs having been lost, America has lost its preeminence--
or is about to lose its preeminence. It would seem to me it's our job 
here as representatives of the American public and the American economy 
to do everything we possibly can to rebuild and reestablish the great 
American manufacturing sector, to do everything we can to restore to 
America those 9 million middle class jobs that have been lost to 
outsourcing, to our companies moving overseas, and to some rather 
impractical and rather foolish laws that have been passed and are on 
the books.

                              {time}  1520

  There is something we can do today with this bill. This bill, while 
seeming to be small, ought to be our very first step this session to 
make sure that in every piece of legislation we pass there would be an 
incentive, an obligation, or an advantage for American manufacturers.
  Small hydro, who's to care about small hydro? Well, there are four 
businesses in America that would care a great deal about small hydro. 
In New Mexico, the Elephant Butte Irrigation District develops low-cost 
small hydro. Canyon Hydro in Deming, Washington, manufactures and 
produces small hydro. NATEL Energy Company in Alameda, California, 
manufactures small hydro programs. And James Leffel & Company in 
Springfield, Ohio, manufactures the machinery for small hydro. This 
bill would provide an opportunity for these four American companies to 
build these small hydro projects, made in America, made by Americans.
  The amendment that I'm proposing simply says, in addition to what is 
in this bill, that we add a simple paragraph that says:

       In all practical purposes, the machinery that is to be 
     constructed and used in these projects shall be made in 
     America by American workers.

  One small step, but a necessary step, and one step along the way to 
rebuilding the American manufacturing sector.
  We can do this. There are those who say that, well, we're not making 
it. Well, we are making it. And when we write laws that require that it 
be made in America, guess what? Things are made in America.
  In that stimulus bill--whatever you may think it, good or bad--there 
was a provision written in that Amtrak was to have some new 
locomotives. Someone put in an additional sentence that said these must 
be 100 percent made in America. Siemens, the German company, came 
forward and said: We can do that. And in Sacramento, California today, 
a half-billion-dollar contract is being executed for numerous electric 
locomotives for Amtrak, 100 percent American made.
  We can establish the policies to make it in America and to rebuild 
the great American manufacturing sector. We ought to be using all of 
our tax money whenever we purchase something to be made in America. If 
we're going to subsidize solar panels or wind turbines or even hydro 
projects, then let it be American manufacturers that get that money--to 
be made in America. Simple, but it's up to us. It's up to 435 of us.
  What is to be our policy? Are we going to encourage American 
manufacturing with something as simple as this amendment, or are we 
simply going to shrug our shoulders and ignore the fact that 9 million 
American manufacturing jobs have been lost? Are we to ignore our 
responsibility to bring those jobs back here? I don't think there's one 
of us among the 435 of us here, Mr. Speaker, that would say: not to 
worry, let it be. No, I think all of us, Mr. Speaker, would want to 
bring the American manufacturing jobs back.
  This amendment--which would be the final amendment to the bill and 
which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee--this 
amendment, if adopted, would proceed immediately to passage and give to 
American workers a small but significant opportunity to have a well-
paying middle class job and once again America being the undisputed 
leader in manufacturing.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, during the course of debate 
today, it was mentioned several times--which of course is true--that 
virtually identical legislation passed in the last Congress with 
bipartisan support. I find it rather ironic that the author of this 
motion to recommit last year voted for this bill without the motion to 
recommit language in it. So I think we have some common ground and 
we're making some progress, and I thank the gentleman for his vote on 
that.
  But let's talk about what this bill does. This bill takes existing 
American facilities, like irrigation ditches, and says, my goodness, 
water running downhill has a sense of energy to it; we ought to somehow 
capture that energy. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) says: Why 
don't we put turbines in there and create American energy? Wonderful 
idea. So that's what this bill

[[Page H1889]]

is all about. Nothing in this bill prevents anything that the gentleman 
is proposing in his motion to recommit.
  But I will just close by saying what this bill really does and what 
the essence of what we're talking about here today. This bill creates 
American jobs and American energy at no cost to the taxpayer. What else 
is there to say? Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The gentleman had 5 minutes to make his 
case. No, I will not yield to the gentleman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 
5-minute vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 226, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 95]

                               YEAS--194

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--226

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Amodei
     Bass
     Castor (FL)
     Collins (NY)
     Cramer
     Hastings (FL)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Lynch
     Markey
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Walz

                              {time}  1536

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. COLLINS of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 95, H.R. 678, 
On Motion to Recommit with Instructions, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416, 
nays 7, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 96]

                               YEAS--416

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson

[[Page H1890]]


     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Radel
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                                NAYS--7

     Dingell
     Johnson (GA)
     Levin
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Moore
     Sires
     Smith (WA)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Castor (FL)
     Collins (NY)
     Cramer
     Hastings (FL)
     Lynch
     Markey
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Walz

                              {time}  1546

  Messrs. PALLONE, POCAN, SWALWELL of California and Ms. DUCKWORTH 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COLLINS of New York. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 96, H.R. 678, 
On Passage, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________