categorical exclusion and having a policy in place, not one project has utilized this project. because of a potential legal uncertainty surrounding categorical exclusions. as a result, there is no new development that has occurred and mr. tipton's amendment will improve this particular situation. so once again, let this be done. this is not denying a nepa review. nepa has already been done on every one of these projects. this is saying you don't need to do the same thing a second time, which is simply redundant, it is silly, it's red tape bungling by administrations that need not be there. the choice is very simple in this particular bill. either you can give the administration, the executive branch, the right to make these kinds of decisions on moving us forward, in which case the administration can make and can take away their decision at whim, in which case it invites

litigation because of the uncertainty of an administrative policy. and also invites conflict within differented a -- administrative agencies. or we can do what we're supposed -- within different administrative agencies. or we can do what we're supposed to do which is solve problems. mr. tipton's approach is to let the legislature make the decision, to institute what the policy will be and tell the agencies how they will proceed into the future. . . we can have the legislature stand up and do its job or we can pass it up and let the administrative branch come up with regulations now which they could change and also are subject to the fear of litigation. this is an easy thing to do. this bill actually should be a no-brainer. it will increase the energy production we have in the country. it will increase the ability of making sure that we have adequate water resources in the west. it will give energy -- it will also give a needed boost of revenue to the canal company and

it will create ultimately more jobs, especially with a cheap form of highly effective energy production. this bill is reasonable and it's understandable and why it passed with a bipartisan vote last time. i hope it passes with a bipartisan vote again. and i hope we can recognize that this will move us forward. i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time unless you have other speeches. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i have no -- have no requests at all. i'm ready to close if my colleague is. mr. beneficiaryon: i'm prepared to close. -- mr. bishop: i'm prepared to close. ms. slaughter: thank you very much. today's bill does nothing to address the pressing economic issues facing every american household. fails to stop the sequestration cut threatening our economy as a whole. instead, it rather ambiguous on

one hand, and it takes back away. but we'll get to that in general debate. instead today's legislation unnecessarily attacks environmental protections while doing nothing to create new jobs. today's legislation includes a blanket waiver for all small conduit hydropower projects. that generate less than five megawatts of power. the requirement is arbitrary and would fail to protect the environment. environmental dange certificate not determined by the megawatts produced but whether the hydropower project is located where it is likely to do damage. a one megawatt project in the wrong location would be more harmful to the environment and a six megawatt project in the right location would do. perhaps most importantly consideration of the legislation is taking up time that we could earwise be using to repeal the sequester and create jobs. as i mentioned repeatedly on the house floor, my colleagues and

ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen, had appeared to the rules committee repeatedly offering legislation to repeal the sequester and reduce our deficit in a responsible way. the rules committee in at least three times have never even allowed it to come to the floor. but despite voting on hydropower legislation twice in the last 13 months, they have rejected mr. van hollen, as i stated, the ranking member on the budget, and his bill would save and a create thousands of jobs. mr. speaker, as we defeat the previous question, i will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up h.r. 1426, representative tim bishop of new york, to roll back the tax give aways to big oil companies. the bill is known as the big oil welfare repeal act. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with strean matter immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question so we can get back to trying to grow our economy and create american jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. in conclusion let me state a couple of things. number one, this is a good rule. therefore you should vote for this rule. it is a fair and open rule. fair and modified open rule. more importantly, it is a rule that will allow us to discuss a very good bill. this bill encourages energy production. we may think of these as small energy products, but i am told all these small projects already being held up in colorado would create the amount of energy that comes from a large project like the glen canyon dam. it's a large amount of energy that is clean energy that we will be producing. number two, this bill gets rid of redundancy. it is not we are doing away with

environmental protection, or review for environmental protection, that environmental protection review has already been done. it's we are simply saying for these small projects you don't need to do the same thing a second time and incur the costs, which is an amazing amount of cost, and potential litigation factors that go along with it. if we do want to produce private sector jobs, and that is a worthy goal, you have to have energy to do it. this bill produces the energy which you could use to grow the economy to produce those jobs that we really want. that is why it is a bipartisan bill and i expect bipartisan vote on this particular bill and it's a good bill and we should pass it today. i yield back the balance of my time. and there's something else i do. move the previous question. it's a good bill, fair rule. i urge the adoption. with that i yield back the time

and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah yields back his time. both sides have yielded back their time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic votes on the question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 236. the nays are 190. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid pon the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on house administration be discharged from further consideration of house resolution 142 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. he house will come to order. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 142, resolved, section 1, election of

members on joint committee of congress on library and printing. a, joint committee on progress on the library, the following members are hereby elected to the joint committee of congress on the library to serve chair of committee on house administration and chair of the subcommittee on legislative branch of the committee on appropriations, one, mr. harper, two, mr. brady of pennsylvania. three, ms. zoe lofgren of california, c, join committeing on printing. the following members are hereby elected to the joint committee on printing to serve with the chair on the committee on house administration. one, mr. harper. two, mr. nugent, three, mr. brady of pennsylvania. and four, mr. vargas. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to consideration of the resolution? without objection, the resolution is agreed, and the motion is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i also

ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on house resolution 142. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to withdraw mr. adrian smith of nebraska as a co-sponsor of 1175. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and includeheir remarks and extraneous material on the bill, h.r. 678. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

pursuant to house resolution 140 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 678. the chair appoints the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, to he preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 678, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize the bureau of reclamation

conduit facilities for hydropower development under federal reclamation law, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the the gentlewoman from california, mrs. napolitano, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the ommittee will be in order. the chair: the house will come to order. members take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 678, the bureau of reclamation's 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% of our power, and it helps keep electricity rates low and affordable for our residents. it is one of the cheapest and cleanest forms of electricity and helps make other intermittant sources of renewable energy like wind and solar possible. yet too often it is frequently the case with energy projects on federal lands the development of new hydropower gets caught up in bureaucratic red tape and regulation. 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 canals and pipeline hydropower projects on the existing bureau of reclamation facilities. mr. chairman, i want to stress the point that these new projects will only be at existing facilities. these existing man-made facilities have already gone through extensive environmental he review when they were initially -- -- initially built. requiring duplicative reviews only imposes unnecessary delays and adds administrative costs. i real lies that the brrm -- bureau of reclamation has come up with streamlining since we considered this bill in the last congress, but it's overwhelm a theoretical version of streamlining since it has never been used in the six months after it was created. this bill simply streamlines the regulatory administrative process so that water users can atfree to develop hydropower

the federal canals they already operate and maintain. this bill would 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 could 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 it today and that the senate will take action on this job-creating energy bill.

i want to thank the committee members of the natural resources committee, mr. tipton of colorado, mr. gosar of arizona, and mr. cox of california for their tremendous work on this bill and being strong champions of small-scale hydroproduction. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentlelady from california, mrs. napolitano, is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mitts napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. 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. it should have already been enacted into law. we all agree small condue due it hydropower, adding that to the project, is a great idea. it's really a wonderful idea. h.r. 678 could easily have 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 addition of clean energy, it means all those things. but to the exclusion of nepa. as the gentleman mentioned, h.r. 678 would amend 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 five megawatts.

the bill waives nepa, which is on page 409, even though the ureau of reclamation has a category exclusion to apply to small conduit projects. it's overwhelm been there six months and takes government a long time to get the worth out to those parties. the waiver of nepa is a -- is a bill that is unnecessary. since reclamation has already implemented this guidance through this categorical exclusion. unfortunately some members on my other side of the aisle have characterized nepa as distribute nepa waive as, quote, the main purn of this legislation. the waiver in this bill is the exact same waiver that the republicans put into the nearly identical bill last congress. just like the last time, the senate won't pass it. and that bill will again expire in the senate.

it is totally unnecessary to go this effort and futility. this is not what anyone on this side of the aisle wants to see happen and he would support the bill -- and we would support the bill without the nepa waiver. mr. speaker, i oppose this legislation and ask my colleagues to do the same and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california reserves her time. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this legislation on natural resources, the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. r. 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 made 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 even cost more more than the projects themselves and turn

sensible economic electricity projects into cost-prohibitive farce. it's proposed to be amended this bill requires the bureau to categorically exclude the installation of these small hydroelectric generators in existing facilities that have are 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 assures that installation of hydrogen raters ill not disrupt -- hydro generators will not disrupt water generations. farm something one example. some irrigation districts are forced to use diesel generaters to pump water to their fields. you put hydroelectric generaters in existing canals and pipes and they become virtually self-sustaining while reducing reliance on other sources of electricity that do produce error emissions. it's 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 knock white house generators in already existing facilities. even ferc, a bastion of regulatory exs, agrees that these studies are unnecessary when conducted on similar nonfederal 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 nonfederal facilities. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. costa. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. costa: thank you very much, mr. speaker, and 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. mr. speaker, 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 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 district, 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 of

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 tool box. let me repeat that. one of the most important tools in our nation's energy tool box . hydropower is a 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 sand with a keen valley, in which we have a -- san joaquin valley, in which we have a vast network that provides 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 large hely underutilized. 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. under currently the federal regulatory commission, otherwise known as ferc,

maintaining jurisdiction over small projects like those that i am talking about. serving on the natural resources committees i've heard from folks across the country that say that these regulations are too costly and too difficult to navigate. obtaining an exception from ferc's permitting rules can take up to six 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 stream lining the process, the irrigation districts powered at no cost to the taxpayers. these projects typically are five 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 pumpsing 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 resources 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 hydroprojects 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, 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. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i am pleased to yield five minutes to the sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton. the chair: the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton, is recognized for five minutes. mr. tipton: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. 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 is the cleanest and

most abundant natural energy source, should be at the forefront of any comprehensive national 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 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 a moving canal water. many irrigation districts and electrical utilities seek to develop hydropower and 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, 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 in existing manmade facilities render 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 would result from the passage of this bill must still undergo full environmental review where they impact the environment. to require a lengthy review by 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 multifederal 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. nonfederal operators know the details of the facilities best and are locally invested. as a result, it's only logical to offer them the first opportunity to develop this energy on facilities that they

maintain. additionally, those irrigation districts with preexisting arrangements with the bureau or the federal energy regulatory commission for water delivery and hydropower development will not be disturbed by this bill. i'm proud to have the support of the family farm alliance, 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. and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, madam speaker. and i agree with my colleague, except some of those projects were built in 1902 through 1970's. i do think we need nepa protection. i would like to yield five minutes to congressman swalwell from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. swalwell: thank you and i'd

like to thank the ranking member for yielding me the time . mr. 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 nonoutsourceble jobs here at home in america. . it includes bills like mine 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 for the 21st century work force. what are rare earth elements? these are 17 chemical elements, prior to coming to congress and learning about how they affect our economy, i couldn't point out, but they are very critical

to making cell phones, to making our electric cars, and also to making our anti-missile 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% of rare earth elements are extracted and exported from china. 80% of rare earth magnets and almost 100% 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 suns for relying so heavily upon china for rare earth production that is so crucial and critical to what we create here in america. my district includes northern silicon valley, home of silicone chip processing, the technology boom, home of the internet and

also home of many advance manufacturing production sites. h.r. 1022, the securing energy critical elements and american jobs act of 2013, aims to help reduce our dependence on china for these critical elements. instead make it here in america. but in order for us to to this we need to invest in developing our technical work force 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, in 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 field of energy and 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 the innovation valley. this area also would rely upon energy critical elements. as the ranking member said, we have an opportunity today to work in a bipartisan fashion but unfortunately i do not see us doing that. so i would conclude by asking that we come together and also in my bill there is a loan guarantee nor a company with new processing and refining technology, the security energy critical elements in american jobs act of 2013 will help spur private investment in companies on the forefront of this critical field. very important that we have the federal government at the very inception at the beginning providing the research and federal funding, but most importantly to get it out into the private industry. 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

work force. let's harness our own resources. let's make it america and we can help all americans make it. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: madam chair, but i yield time to the gentlelady from wyoming, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: i find the gentleman's arguments on the other side rather striking because he's talking about american made jobs in another piece of legislation not associated with this. 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. 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. he sounded like it was a big, big issue. i suspect we may have, madam chairman, that legislation again in front of us, and i hope that we can enlist the gentleman's support when that bill comes to the floor. with that, madam chairman, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming, a valuable member of the natural resources committee. the chair: the gentlelady from wyoming is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 6786 which i am an original co-sponsor, and i want to thank representative hastings for their hard work on this bill which unlocks significant hydropower development potential in my home state of wyoming. mrs. lummis: congress and the bureau of reclamation have over the years created hundreds of canals and pipelines to serve water uses in the west. most 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 channel the energy byproduct of these watter ways. the bureau of reclamation has identified 373 condue its 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 expressing authorizing the bureau to oversee hydropower development in these condue its. second, it directs the bureau of reclamation to exempt small hydropower projects from

duplicative environmental paperwork requirements. we are 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 the bureau's contract renewals require it with some water users. requiring duplicative environmental analysis on pre-existing condue its makes no sense. provides no environmental balances, and imposes more costs and bureaucracy on potential developers. third, the bill protects water supply and delivery as a fundamental priority for these condue its whose vital mission will not be disrupted. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, jobs creating bill and yield the balance of my ty. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield time on this to the gentleman from california.

but i'd like a time check. the chair: the gentlelady from california has 18 minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington remaining. inutes the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, very much, madam chairwoman. thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak. mr. vargas: h.r. 678 could easily be a bipartisan noncontroversial bill, but the 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 on creating jobs or reinvigorating our manufacturing sector in this country. 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, pursue a comprehensive manufacturing strategy, promote the export of u.s. goods, encourage innovation, and train a 21st century work force. 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 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 jobs for months. we must do more to get the financial institutions to get back to lending in this country, and now it's up to the republicans and democrats to work together to act and make an american -- to pass make it america legislation and help secure america's and the world leader when it comes to job creation and when it comes to noinvation. when it comes to hydropower it's important for us to understand we need hydropow, innovation, and yes we need to make sure

that small and large hydropower moves forward, but doing it at the expense of the environment by waiving environmental review is not the right way to do it. many people in these chambers speak constantly of making sure that we don't put things on the backs of our children and grandchildren. mr. cardenas: every time we waive environmental review, every time we don't do things carefully, we move in the direction where it takes sometimes a year or two or three to go in the wrong direction, it takes decades for us to correct those environmental problems. environmental review should be part of the process and yes, it should be he streamlined, yes we should make sure we do things in a fashion that does put people back to work but carefully and responsibly. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you. i'm pleased to yield four minutes to the gentleman from arizona, another valuable member of the committee on natural resources. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for four minutes. >> i thank chairman hastings. i rise in support of h.r. 678, the bureau of reclamation's

small conduit and rural jobs act of 2013. this legislation was one of representative tipton's and my priorities in the natural resources committee last congress, so i'm pleased to join him again as an original co-sponsor and appreciate that the house is taking up the legislation so quickly in the 113th congress. mr. gosar: our country is failing to fully tap its hydroelectric power generation potential. the federal government owns over 47,000 miles of canals, drains, pipelines, and tunnels throughout the west that are perfectly suitable for hydropower production. but hardworking irrigators and power providers in our district 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 megawasts clean, cheap, and abundant

hydroelectricity. the resulting development will create jobs in rural communities hit hardest by the recession, increase our country's renewable energy portfolio, and generate revenue for the federal treshry. the members of this body opposing this legislation claim it would 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 conducts have been in place for years. does not contain any endangered wildlife or fish, and were subject to environmental analysis at the time of construction and rehabilitation. on the poster to my left is a clear example what we are talking about. it's concrete. i don't see the need and i hope you don't see the need for any environment assessment. this canal is in the western part of my congressional district. we have miles of this type of infrastructure out, including

the central arizona project. that provides my constituents with wotter necessary to live in the desert and grow a good portion of this nation's produce. the experts on the ground say they are sitting on a hydropower gold mine waiting for the needed clarifications and streamlining that will cut costs and make this program attractive. there are over 26 locations just like this one in my state alone. mostly in yuma, and western maricopa counties cuteable for this development. the business council of arizona believes its members can produce enough low-cost energy to produce nearly 5,000 homes with this simple -- simply by installing 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 all of the above plans. it already accounts for nearly 75% of this country's total

renewable electricity generation, and we haven't even begun yet. early in 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 mine legislation that does the same for publicly owned infrastructure. congress should be doing the american people an injustice if we didn't move swiftly on this bill. hydropower must be an integral opponent of the long-term all of the above strategy in arizona and our nation. this bill will allow western communities to play a major role in that future. i will continue to work with congressman tipton to ensure this bill not only passes the house this year but gets to the senate and sent to the president's desk for his signature. it is that simple. commonsense utilization of infrastructure we already have. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona yields back. the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. napolitano: thank you, madam speaker. i'm glad that there is some visual effects here.

it is important, but i don't know how old the canal leeches or any other issues. it is important to have a review. i would like to give five minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from california, congressman takano. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. takano: i thank the gentlelady from my home state of california for yielding time. this bill is something that democrats could support if environmental review were not a problem. i 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 employment rate is 7.6%, and in my own district, it's nearly 11%. 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, it's the job 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 work force. we have the tools at our disposal to do these things. the legislation that i've introduced that is a part of america 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 le to receive a $2,000 tax credit for student participating in a qualified medical training and skills program with a total credit 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 work force. 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 five years. many of these jobs are unfilled because of a lack of training. the jobs 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 work force 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 the democrats to pass each piece of the make it in america legislation. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to another member of the natural resources committee, the gentleman from montana, mr. daines. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from montana is recognized for two minutes. mr. daines: madam chairman, thank you. 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 little black foot river casting for trout in "a river runs through it." back in montana we rely on

these 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 that irgait our farms and ranches and they water our livestock. in montana about a third of our energy comes from hydropower, generating 1,100 megawatts a year. it will power nearly 600 homes, six of montana's 10 largest generating plants rupp on hydroelectric power. we're not here talking about streams and rivers. we're talking about man made canales and waterways. they've -- canals and waterways. the rural jobs act would allow each of these projects to generate more than 26 million kilo watts of power per hour. there is no reason red tape should tie up that much 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. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from montana yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california. mrs. napolitano: i reserve the balance of my time serve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield to another member of the natural resources committee, mr. lamalfa. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamalfa: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam chairman, you know, once in a while a bill comes through that even makes great sense in washington, d.c., and this is really a commonsense measure. now 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. so there's all these opportunities we would have on places like that, but today we're talking 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 of just putting the bureaucracy and the red tape aside for a commonsense measure to take advantage of an opportunity to do something that, you know, on the heels of march madness here, really installations would be no harm, no foul. these facilities already exist. it would be easy to be put in place if we could put aside the red tape of nepa requirements would be unnecessary. as i drive up and down my canals and ditches, again, no harm, no foul here. we are looking at an easy installation that would be a valuable thing for where i come

from california, renewable energy portfolio, which is 33% kicking in. it's pretty hard to find renewable energy, especially when most of the sources are required to be solar or wind. hydropower is a very important component in my state here. why aren't we doing it in the commonsense areas? h.r. 678. i commend mr. tipton moving this forward. this will be positive for rural america, for our renewable energy portfolio which is affecting a lot of the country these days because renewable energy in most cases is very expensive. so the same people that are saying that we can't do this without nepa, same people saying we can't have fracturing which is bringing very cost-effective electricity to many, many americans now, same people that want to remove hydroelectric dams in my part of the district in northern california are now wanting to oppose 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 today. let's put americans to work with commonsense reachable measures that are environmentally sound and certainly good for our economy. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, madam speaker. may i inquire how many minutes we have left? the chair: the gentlelady from california has 12 minutes remaining and the gentleman from washington has 8 1/2 minutes. mrs. napolitano: how many speakers does he have? mr. hastings: i am prepared to close general debate if the gentlelady is prepared to close. mrs. napolitano: i am. the chair: the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: this is a good bill with one bad provision and that is the nepa waiver that is not needed. it is not good environmental

policy and it is mott good energy policy. nepa is not just red tape -- and it is not good energy policy. nepa is not just red tape. they -- to consider any possible impacts to the area, at the appropriate time i will offer an amendment to fix the one flaw in this bill and i hope my amendment is adopted and send this to the senate for passage. and i close. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady from california yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: madam chairman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: madam chairman, 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's 47,000 miles of canals and ditches that can be utilized for energy production. but there seems to be one problem, and that problem

reinvolves around nepa -- reinvolves around nepa, national environmental policy act, which is put in place by the way in 1969. now, i'm not going to say there is 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. now, there were -- there were environmental statutes on the books back then, madam chairman, and they were all very saving. i happen to live in central washington. there are two great projects in central washington, the columbia basin project and another one totaling probably over a million acres of acclimated land. what we're talking about is 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. and with the prior chart that the gentleman from california put up, most of the states have benefited by this are from the west. that means that we could make the desert bloom even more in the west if we utilize these facilities. and finally i just want to make one other observation. my good friend from california was says saying, ok, this was like a bill we passed last year. we passed it. the senate didn't do anything. i remind the gentlelady and i know she knows this, we are two distinct bodies, the house and the senate. if they have a different view, for goodness sakes, pass something. and 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 and therefore don't pass it because the senate won't take it up is not doing our job. so madam chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. there are some amendments that will be following and we can get into more detail on that.

i urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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 one 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? for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. tipton of colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to seek on his amendment. mr. tipton: thank you, madam chair woman. i offer this amendment in

response to the concerns of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle at the request of the broad range of irrigation districts, water conservation and conservancy districts, public utilities are all supporting this bill. it is a commonsense amendment. i'm pleased to have the support of my democrat 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 reclamations categorical exclusion process under the national environmental policy act for small hydropower projects covered under this bill. it would steamline the approval process for clean renewable energy and help provide certainty for investors and job creators while providing flexibility to the bureau to adjust 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 approximate addition, the amendment specifically mentions codifying the categorical exclusion process for small conduit hydropower. this is an approach -- is an approach that is supported by one in the march 19, 2000, letter which state, quote, congress should create a categorical exclusion for small conduit hydropower, unquote. that's exactly what this amendment does. the use of a categorical exclusion for small conduit hydropower development could mean the difference between private investment in a public good with a multitude of benefits. an unreasonable financial costs and lengthy delays that lead to untapped potential. my hope is that this amendment, which is broadly supported by a diverse range of groups invested in the bill who are committed to ensuring continued environmental protection will

not have any reservations to promote clean, renewable energy and allow us to be able to move forward, united in our support. i yield. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. i think it adds a great deal to all of the work that you and your bipartisan co-sponsors have put into this, and i support the -- i support the amendment and i yield back to the gentleman. mr. tipton: i thank the gentleman for his comments, reclaiming my time, and with that, madam chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? mrs. napolitano: i seek time to oppose this amendment. the chair: and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. napolitano: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to this tipton amendment number 3 and for the congressional record. we're glad to see the author of the legislation recognizing that the developing conduit hydropower projects in those, nepa is not the problem. and the nepa waiver 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. . this only tweaks language that should be removed. it circles around the edge of the problem while my amendment which i'll offer in a few minutes solves this problem by removing the waiver completely so that 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 sites of these projects contained in the base bill. which is why my amendment will increase the cap from five to 15 megawatts. the tipton amendment does nothing to raise the cap on these projects and his amendment is a significant step in the right direction for the bill's sponsor and we will not oppose it and work with the sponsor to perfect the language. however my amendment, which we'll see momentarily, is better

energy policy and environmental policy. the amendment is a start, but i urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment that really takes this legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady cannot reserve. mrs. napolitano: yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? mrs. napolitano: madam speaker, i'd like to offer napolitano amendment identified as amendment number 1 in the across-the-board. the chair: ask the clerk to designate the amendment. the clerk: offered by mrs. napolitano of california. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes to speak on her amendment. mrs. napolitano: thank you, madam speaker. my amendment is simple. it would strike the neepo, 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 standards for the 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 c.e. to small conduit hydropower projects. in fact their c.e. went further. it can be used to expedite a wide variety of low-impact hydropow her projects built on reclamation's water infrastructure. the main point of the legislation is to clarify the reclamation they have jurisdiction over the development of conduit projects on reclamation facilities. as i mentioned before, the sponsor's amendment overwhelm tweaks the language that should be removed from the bill entirely. the tipton amendment tinkers around this 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 five to 15 megawatts for small conduit hydroprojects. this would allow for more power to be created as those 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 necessary and i urge my colleagues to vote why on my amendment. let me point out that it is my understanding that there have been some projects built under the current c.e. 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 costs will be diminished. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady -- mrs. napolitano: yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. hastings: thank you. i just want to make a point 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 point the out again -- pointed out again at the end of general debate there seems to be a cause effect of having nepa and having projects go forward. here's the important point on this, madam chairman, from my point of view. the -- 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 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. but the gentleman from colorado's bill does is simply

put a power source. within the existing ditches that have gone through environmental he review. why -- environmental review. why would you have to jump through more hoops? unless you want to slow the process down. why do you want to do that? of course 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. i reject that and that's why i oppose the gentlelady's amendment because it would waive that requirement. once again, madam chairman, this 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 my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any other member wish to speak to the amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition?

>> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. tipton: madam chairwoman, we 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 all together that she is offering will not -- will be able to streamline the projects' approval process, this amendment will ensure that private investment in small conduit hydropower projects will not be achieved. i think it's important to note 750 trillion ng $1. per year in regulatory costs in this nation. are all regulations bad? no, they aren't. but redundant regulations which drive up costs to be able to create jobs, put americans back

to work, and 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 two opposing ideas in regards to the nepa provision on man-made projects. chairman hastings as ably noted, these are man-made ditches. we have no impediment that's going to be looked at when it mes to endangered species, this has already gone through the desired process of environmental review. so does it make good common sense to say an area that's been reviewed made by man does not have to go through an additional review process in order to be able to create those jobs and create american energy? i think that's the senseable approach for us to purr ue --

sensible approach for us to pursue. with that i urge defeat of the napolitano amendment. let's get this job done and truly work to get americans back to work. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. this amendment strikes the nepa exclusion for small hydroelectric projects, that's the principle 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 hydroprojects 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. mr. mcclintock: one witness testified that installing 15 very small hydropower units on a nearby bureau of reclamation

$450,000, cost over 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 costs of the hydropower units. no one in their right mind would invest in a project with this kind of retirement -- requirement. it simply makes no sefpblets that's the primary reason why conduit hydropower development is not happening. it is true the bureau of reclamation instituted a new nepa categorical exclusion for small hydroelectric projects back in september of 2012. but six months later this new policy has resulted in precisely zero new projects moving forward. and 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 the support of gentlelady's effort to allow the bureau to consider units with 15 megawatts, but i would remind 15 hat the projects times megawatts still equals zero electricity. there are practical no projects in this range to begin with which makes the amendment disingenuous. even if it were, if the current regulatory scheme isn't allowing five 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 not helpful. wants to support hydropower but opposes mr. tipton's bill reminds me of tolstoy's observation when he said, i sit on a man's back, check choking him and making him carry me, all the while i assure him and anyone who will listen that i'm sympathetic for his plight and willing to do everything i can to help. except by getting off his back. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. any other member wish to speak to the amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: i'd like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed.

are there further amendments? for what purpose does the gentlelady from -- gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the across-the-board -- congressional record, offered by mr. tipton of colorado. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak to his amendment. mr. tipton: madam chairwoman, i offer this amendment to provide technical corrections to eliminate drafting inconsistencies between this year's bill and counterpart in the 112th congress. this amendment reflects changes sought by the bureau of reclamation with respect to definitions more accurately covered in matters and coincide with existing law. the amendment clarifies nothing in the bill affects existing arrangements between irrigation water districts and the federal energy regulatory commission. thank you, madam chairwoman. i yield. mr. hastings: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think this is as you say a technical amendment that adds to the bill and i support it.

i yield back. mr. tipton i thank the gentleman. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from colorado yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: madam speaker, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. napolitano: thank you, madam speaker. the gentleman's amendment makes technical changes that staff has brought to our attention and addresses a few of the administration's concerns. the amendment clarifies the projects already permitted under ferc would not see any regulatory uncertainty with this bill's passage. we are also in agreement the amendment changes that require greater control consultation with irrigation districts and water users associations prior toe the approval -- to the approval of the lease of power privilege. we have no objections to this technical amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it.

he amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in across-the-board in which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 1, by mrs. napolitano of california. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote 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: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. napolitano of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request of a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. and members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 189 and the ncaas are 232 and the amendment is not, is not adopted. there being no further amendments under the rule, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee on the whole house has had under consideration h.r. 678 and pursuant to house resolution 140, reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the committee of the whole.

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 engross. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendments are agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to authorize all bureau of reclamation conduit facilities for hydropower development under federal reclamation law and for ther purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order.

the chair would ask all members to please take their conversations from the floor. please take their seats. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. garamendi: opposed in the current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. garamendi of california moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 678, to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same back to the house for the with with the following amendment, at the en-- fort with with the following amendment, at the end of the bill, add make it in america, offered pursuant to this act or the amendments made by this act shall require to the extent

practiceable that all materials used for conduit hydropower generation be manufactured in the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair would ask all members to please take their seats and remove their conversations from the floor. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. 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 nine million -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california will suspend. the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. the chair would ask all members to take their conversations from the floor.

mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: 25 years ago, no one throughout this world would doubt that the greatest manufacturing nation in the world was america. 25 years later, nine million jobs later having been lost, america has lost its preimminence or about to lose its preimminence. it seems it's our job here as representatives of the american public and the american economy to do everything we possible can to rebuild and re-establish the great american manufacturing sector, to do everything we can to restore to america those nine 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 -- that have been on the books. there's 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 be an incentive, an obligation or an advantage for american manufacturers, small hydro. who cares about small hydro? well, there are four small businesses in america that will care a great deal about small hydro. in new mexico, the elephant butte irrigation district develops low-cost small hydro, canyon hydro in washington, manufacturers and produces small hydro. atel hydro cal in alameda, develops small hydro. and another in springfield, ohio, manufacturers small hydro

programs. in this bill with the adoption of this -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is correct. the house is not in order. the chair would once again ask members to please take their seats and to please remove their conversations from the floor. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: if the gentleman will suspend a moment longer, the chair would ask all members and all staff to please take their conversations from the floor and to please take their seats. mr. garamendi: i'll pick up where the noise began and that is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi: james from springfield, ohio, manufacturers machinery for small hydro. this bill will 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, we are not making it, well, we are making it, and when we write laws that require 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 says these must be made 100% in america. siemens, the german company, came forward and said, we can do that. and in sacramento, california, today half billion dollar

contract is being executed for numerous electric locomotives or amtrak, 100% 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 produce -- if we're going to subsidize solar panels or wind turbines or even hydro projects, then let it be merican 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 nine 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, all of us, mr. speaker, would want to bring the american manufacturing jobs back, and 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 speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i

rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will suspend until members can take their conversations from the aisles. the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. 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. 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 it and create american energy? wonderful idea. so that's what this bill is all about. and so 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, what the essence of what we're talking about here today. this bill creates american jobs and american energy at no cost to the taxpayer. what else is there to say? vote no on the motion to recommit. the gentleman had five minutes to make his case. no, i will not yield to the

gentleman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. garamendi: i call for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california requests the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on the passage of the bill, if ordered. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 194, the nays are 226. the motion is not adopted.

the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays, the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 416. the nays are seven. the bill is passed.

without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, thanks to the hard work and determination of the american people, we have made significant progress over the last four years. after a decade of war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home. after years of recession, our businesses have created over six million new jobs. we buy more american cars than we have in five years. and less foreign oil we have in 20 years. our housing market are healing. our stock market are rebounding and consumers, patients and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before. but we know that there are

millions of americans whose hard work and dedication have not yet been rewarded. our economy is adding jobs, but too many people still cannot find full-time employment. corporate profits have skyrocketed to all-time highs. but for more than a decade, wages and incomes have barely budget. it is our generation's task to reignite the true engine of america's economic growth, a rising, thriving middle class. it is our unfinished task to restore the basic bargain that restored this country, the idea that if you work hard and meet your responsibilities you can get ahead no matter where you come from, no matter what you look like or whom you love. it is our unfinished task to make sure that this government works on behalf of the many and not just the few, that it encourages free enterprise, rewards individual initiative and opens the doors of opportunity to every child across this great nation. a growing economy that creates good middle-class jobs.

this must be the north star that guides our efforts. every day we should ask ourselves three questions as a nation -- how do we attract more jobs to our shores, how do we equip our people with the skills they need to get those jobs, and how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living? this budget seeks to answer each of these questions. our first priority is making america a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing. after shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added more than 500,000 jobs over the past three years. companies large and small are increasingly deciding to bring jobs back to america. to accelerate this trend, the budget builds on the success of the manufacturing innovation institute we created in youngstown, ohio, last year and calls for the creation of a network of 15 of these hubs across the nation. in these innovation hubs, businesses will partner with universities and federal agencies to turn regions around our country into global centers

of high-tech jobs. the budget also includes new initiatives to support manufacturing communities, including a new tax credit to strengthen dusht to attract investments -- durability to atrack investments and jobs and to help draw investment around the world to our shores. if we want to make the best products, we also have to invest in the best ideas. that is why the budget maintains a world-class commitment to science and research, targeting resources to those areas most likely to contribute directly to the creation and transformational technologies that can create the businesses and jobs of the future. no area holds more promise than our investments in american energy. the budget continues to advance my all-of the above strategy on strategy, investing in clean energy and development, promoting energy efficiencyy in our cars, homes and -- efficiency in our cars, homes and businesses, launching new

efforts to combat the threat of climate change. modeled after my successful race to the top education reform effort, the budget includes a new race to the top energy efficiency challenge for states, rewarding those that implement the most effective policies to cut energy waste and it establishes a new energy security trust funded by royalty revenue from oil and gas leases, to support initiatives to shift our cars and trucks off oil, cutting our nation's reliance on foreign oil. over the last four years, we have begun the hard work of rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. we have built and comboffed over 350,000 miles of road and more than 6,000 miles of rail over 300 e replaced ,000 bridges. we need to repair our existing infrastructure and invest in the infrastructure of tomorrow

include high-speed rail, high-tech school and self-healing power combrids. these investments will have economic combrothe and put workers back on the -- growth and put workers back on the job now. it includes $50 billion for upfront infrastructure investment, including a fix-it first program that makes an immediate investment to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurely deficient bridges across the country, and to make sure taxpayers do not shoulder the whole burden. the budget creates a rebuild america partnership to attract private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most, modern ports to move our goods, modern pipelines to withstand a storm and modern schools worthy of our children. the budget also supports efforts i announced earlier this year to modernize and improve the efficiency of the federal permitting process. cutting through the red tape that has been holding back even

some of the most carefully planned infrastructure projects. these efforts will help us to achieve the new goal i set to cut timelines in half for infrastructure projects while creating new incentives for better outcomes for communities and the environment. all of these initiatives and manufacturing, energy and infrastructure will help entrepreneurs and small business owners expand and create new jobs, but none of it will matter unless we also equip our citizens with the skills and training to fill those jobs. and that has to start at the earliest possible age. but today fewer than three in 104-year-olds are enrolled in a high-quality preschool program and the high cost of private preschool puts too much of a financial burden on middle-class families. the budget, therefore, includes a proposal that ensures 4-year-olds across the country have access to high-quality preschool education through a landmark new initiative in

partnership with the states and it increases the availability of early learning for our youngest children to help their growth and development during the formative early years of life, providing a year of free of public free school for school-aged children. it will give all our kids the best start in life, helping them perform better in elementary school and ultimately helping them and the country be better prepared for the demands of the global economy. not only that, it could save hardworking families thousands of dollars each year in childcare costs. this is an investment we need to make, and it is fully paid for in this budget by imposing a new tax on every pack of cigarettes sold. the budget also builds on the historic reforms made during my first term to improve our elementary and secondary school system by rewarding excellence and promoting innovation. to help ensure that our high schools are putting our kids on

a path to college and a good job, the budget includes a new competitive fund that will help redesign america's high schools to prepare students with the real-world skills they need to find a job right away or go to college. the fund reward schools that develop new partnerships with colleges and employers and create classes focusing on science, technology and engineering, mathematics, stem, the skills today's employers seek to fulfill the jobs available right now and in the future. even with better high schools, most young people will still need some higher education through tax credits, grants and better loans. we have made college more affordable for millions of students and families over the last four years but skyrocketing costs are still pricing too many young people out of a higher education or settling them with unsustainable debt and taxpayers cannot continue to subsidize higher and higher costs for higher education. to encourage colleges to do

their part to keep costs down, the budget includes reforms that will ensure affordability and value are considered in determining which colleges receive certain types of federal aid. my administration has also released a new college scorecard that parents and students can use to compare schools. to further ensure our educational system is preparing students for careers in the 21st century economy, the budget includes additional measures to promote stem education such as launching a new stem master teacher core to leverage the expertise of some of america's best and brightest teachers in science and mathematics and to elevate the teaching of these subjects nationwide. it also includes a reorganization and consolidation of stem education programs to improve the effectiveness of federal investments in this area. the budget takes other critical steps to grow our economy, create jobs and strengthen the middle class.

it implements the affordable care act, giving every american access to the high quality affordable health care coverage they deserve and reducing the deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades. it implements wall street reform and giving too big to fail and protecting consumers against the abuses and reckless behavior that contributed to the financial collapse in 2008. and it includes measures to strengthen our housing market and ensure that every responsible homeowner has the opportunity to refinance at today's rates, saving $3,000 a year on average. our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving hopeful immigrants. that is why i have proposed a plan to fix our broken immigration system that secures our borders, cracks down on employers who hire undocumented

workers, attracts highly skilled entrepreneurs and engineers to help create jobs and drive economic growth and establishes a responsible pathway to irn citizenship, a path that -- earn citizenship, a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning english and going to the back of the line behind folks who are trying to come here legally. the budget will make investments that will make our immigration system more fairer and lay a foundation for this permanent commonsense reform. the budget also builds on the progress made over the last four years to expand opportunity for every american and every community willing to do the work to lift themselves up. it creates new ladders of opportunity to ensure that hard work leads to a decent living. it rewards hard work by increasing the minimum wage to $9 an hour so an honest day's work pays more. it partners with communities by identifying promise zones to help rebuild from the recession. it creates pathways to jobs

where the long-term unemployed and youth who have been hardest hit by the downturn and it strengthens families by removing financial deterrence to marriage and supporting the roles of fathers. we also know that economic growth can only be achieved and sustained if america is safe and secure both at home and abroad. at home the budget supports my initiative to help protect our kids, reduce gun violence and expand access to mental health services. we can protect our second amendment rights while coming together around reforms, like eliminating background check loopholes to make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. commonsense reforms that will help protect our kids from the scourge of gun violence that has plagued too many communities across the country. to confront threats outside our borders, the budget ensures our military remains the finest and best equipped military force the world has ever known, even as we wind down more than a decade of war.

already, we have brought home more than 30,000 of our brave service members from afghanistan. our remaining forces are moving into a support role with afghan security forces taking the lead. and over the next year, another 34,000 american troops will come home. this drawdown will continue, and by the end of next year, our war in afghanistan will be over. beyond 2014, the budget supports our continued commitment to a unified and sovereign afghanistan. to maintain our national security, the budget supports our ongoing fight against terrorists, like al qaeda. the organization that attacked us on 9/11 is a shadow of its former self, but different al qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged from the arabian peninsula to africa. we will confront these emerging security challenges through the full range of u.s. capabilities and tools, including diplomatic, security, tedges and economic development -- intelligence and economic development. the budget provides the

resources we need to act on our commitment to and interests in global development by promoting food security that reduces dependence and increases prosperity by investing in the increasingly successful drive towards an aids-free generation and by maintaining our leadership as a global provider of humanitarian assistance that saves lives and reflects american values. he with must also cropt new dangers like cyberattacks that threaten our nation's infrastructure, businesses and people. the budget supports the expansion of governmentwide efforts to counter the full scope of cyberthreats. and strengthens our ability to collaborate with state and local governments, our partners overseas and the private sector to improve our overall cybersecurity. the budget also focuses resources on the asia-pacific region, reasserting american leadership and promoting security, stability, democracy and economic growth. importantly the budget upholds

our solemn obligation to take care of our service members and veterans and to protect our diplomats and civilians in the field. it keeps faith with our veterans, investing in world class care, including mental health care for our wounded warriors, supporting our military families and giving our veterans the benefits, education and job opportunities that they have earned. the budget does all of these things as part of a comprehensive plan that reduces the deficit, all of these initiatives and ideas are fully paid for to ensure they do not increase the deficit by a single dime. by making investments in our people that we pay for responsibly, we will strengthen the middle class, make america a magnet for jobs and innovation and grow our economy which will in turn help us to reduce deficits. but economic growth alone will not solve our nation's long-term fiscal challenges. as we continue to grow our economy, we must take further action to cut our deficits. we do not have to choose between these two important

priorities, we have to do both. over the last four years both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit in a balanced way by more than $2.5 trillion. that is more than halfway toward the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances. as we wind down two wars, we have protected our military families and veterans while cutting defense spending on outdated military weapons systems. domestic discretionary spending is approaching its lowest levels as a share of the economy since president eisenhower was in office and we have moved aggressively to cut waste, fraud and abuse and together we have begun to ask the wealthy to do their fair share while keeping income taxes low for middle class families. overall we have cut the deficit in a balanced way that protects the investments in education, manufacturing, clean energy and small businesses we need to grow the economy and strengthen

the middle class. there is more work to do and this budget is designed to fish the job. but we should not -- finish the job. but we should not do it by making harsh and arbitrary cuts that devastate priorities like education and energy and cost jobs. that is not how to grow the economy. we should not ask middle class senior citizens and working families to pay down the rest of our deficit while the wealthiest are asked for nothing more. that does not grow our middle class. the american people understand that we cannot just cut our way to prosperity. that is why i have repeatedly called for a balanced approach to deficit reduction. and that is why i have offered proposals on multiple occasions that cut wasteful spending, strengthen entitlements and eliminate special tax breaks and loopholes so the wealthiest pay their fair share. and my negotiations with house speaker boehner in december over the so-called fiscal cliff , i again offered a compromised

proposal that was balanced and comprehensive and would achieve our $4 trillion deficit reduction goal. that proposal is still on the table. i am included it -- including it in this budget to demonstrate my commitment to making the kind of tough and balanced choices that are needed to put our nation's finances in order. to be clear, the package i am offering includes some difficult cuts that i do not particularly like. but these measures will only become law if congressional republicans agree to meet me in the middle by eliminating special tax breaks and loopholes so millionaires and billionaires do their fair share to cut the deficit. i will not agree to any deal that seeks to cut the deficit on the backs of middle class families. i am willing to make tough choices that may not be popular within my own party because there can be no sacred cows for either party and i look forward to working with any member of congress who takes a similar balanced approach. this plan is built on the kind of common ground that democrats and republicans should be able

to reach. in total, the budget will cut the deficit by another $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. bringing the deficit below 2% of g.d.p. by 2023 and putting our debt on a declining path. this is not an end in and of itself. the best way to grow the economy and cut the deficit is by creating good middle class jobs. but this plan to reduce the deficit in a balanced way is a critical step forward, ensuring that we have a solid foundation on which to build a strong economy and a thriving middle class for years to come. finally, this budget continues my commitment of -- to reforming and streamlining our government for the 21st century. it builds on my campaign to cut waste by further targeting and eliminating wasteful spending wherever we find it. it reorganizes and consolidates agencies and programs to make them leaner and more efficient. it increases the use of evidence and evaluation to ensure we are making smart

investments with our scarce taxpayer dollars. and it harnesses new technologies to allow us to do more with less. no single budget can solve every challenge and every problem facing the country. but this budget shows how we can live within our means while growing our economy, strengthening the middle class and securing our nation's future. it is not a democratic plan or a republican plan. it is an american plan. and it is a plan that i hope can serve as an outline for us to write the next great chapter of the american story together. signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to committee on appropriations and ordered printed. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is now recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, yesterday it was reported the

nited states has 2.4 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas that can be used for drilling techniques. that's 26% higher than the previous assessment and at current consumption rates, a 90-year supply. the marcela share has the largest resources. what has caused such a jump in resources in production? not the federal government. that's for sure. according to the congressional research service, production of natural gas has decreased on federal lands by 33%. it's the hard work and innovation of private industry, a culmination of technological and drilling advances that have allowed us to access resources that were previously inaccessible. in fact, just last week the energy information administration stated the expanded use of natural gas has driven down energy-related u.s. carbon dioxide emission, to

their lowest levels since 1994. america's just beginning to realize the opportunity of this growing and economically beneficial resource. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is now recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the storied career of america's foremost climateologist in the world, dr. james hanson. last week dr. hanson retired from his position as head of the nasa institute for space studies. after 46 years at nasa, he's leaving the ealing to focus on political legal affects to limit greenhouse gases. he started his career by working on the atmosphere of the planet venus in the 1960's. luckily for the world, he changed his emphasis to the atmosphere of the earth and dr. hanson, perhaps known best for his a.d.a. testimony to the senate committees that helped raise the initial broad awareness of global warming across the united states, he sounded the warming bell of the

affects of climate change and can be credited with bringing the issue to the forefront of the american conscience. dr. hanson who called the pipeline akin to the lighting of the carbon bomb is one of the world's leading advocates of decreased fossil fuel consumption. while his -- his departure will undoubtedly leave a gapping hole in nasa's climate program, i look forward to the role dr. hanson will take on his retirement to fight against the development of keystone and other tar sands pipelines. the future of our planet rests in the hands of scientists like dr. hanson and i ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him the best of luck in his retirement. i hope he can continue the work he's successfully pursued throughout his storied career in this new capacity. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, mr. blumenauer is now recognized as -- mr. blumenauer is now recognized as the designee of

the minority leader. the gentleman is now recognized. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the comments we just heard on the floor from my colleague from tennessee, talking about dr. hanson's retirement. a gentleman who has faced a great deal of criticism, including many from this congress, because of his forceful presentation of his point of view, time after time after time he has been proven correct. this is the most important issue that we're really not debating in congress. there are a group of us here who have formed the safe climate caucus, to be able to promote this discussion. today we extended an invitation

to the leadership of the commerce and energy committee to join us on the floor of the house for a bipartisan debate. encouraging our republican colleagues to come to the floor to be able to deal with this issue that frankly deserves to be in the spotlight. we're not aware of any republican member who has spoken on the floor of the house about the dangers of climate change or the need to reduce emissions and prepare for its impact in this entire session of congress. in fact, as near as we can determine, no republican member of congress has even uttered the words climate change on the floor in this congress. it's, i suppose, better that

they're not talking about it at all than what we had in the last congress. where the republican-led house of representatives voted 53 times to block action on climate change. my republican colleagues voted to defund research, to block action by the e.p.a. to control pollution, to prevent energy efficiency measures from going into effect. remember one of the most comical was the assault on light bulb efficiency, an efficiency standard that was developed admittedly when democrats were in charge, but signed ledgeslation that was work -- legislation that was worked out with the bush administration. that was certainly a travesty. it was interesting. the industry looked at them and shrugged and said, we're moving on. we're not going back to produce less energy-efficient light

bulbs. they voted to stop the administration from encouraging developing countries to do their part. this year the republican members of the energy and commerce committee, which is the committee of primary jurisdiction over energy policy , even voted against holding hearings with scientists who could explain the role of climate change in causing extreme weather, drought, heat waves and wildfires. that's why we've created the afe climate caucus, to work to conspiraciesy of silence here in the house about the dangers of climate change. but we hope, we sincerely hope, that our republican colleagues would join us here on the floor of the house in one of these special orders to discuss our variousow approaches.

if they don't -- various approaches. if they don't agree with human-caused impacts of extreme weather events, engage in the debate to explain why. if they do agree that we are at least having extreme weather events, whether or not they're human-caused, let's debate what we should do to be protecting us from those impacts. the american public deserves no less. so until we're table engage our republican colleagues in a spirited, thoughtful debate on the floor of the house, we will continue pointing out the problems that we face, the isks, the dangers, the past. in 2012, there were over 3,500 weather-related records set due to extreme heat, rain, drought,

cold, and wind. the american public has seen that, they suffered the consequences. they're concerned. hurricane sandy was one of just 11 weather disasters last year in the united states that caused more than a billion dollars of losses. a total of over $60 billion which taxpayers are being forced to help assume the burden. here in washington, d.c., we set another record, 90 degrees today, for april 10, at the same time there are snowstorms in colorado. 2012 was the 36th consecutive year with a global temperature above the average.

the last time there was a year that wasn't above average was 1976. before jimmy carter was elected president. we were celebrating the bicentennial. most of our staff here in washington, d.c., on capitol hill, has never experienced a year where temperatures weren't above average. just because our friends fugget to prevent our initiative doesn't mean it's having an economic impact. the united states congress has appropriated 188 -- has appropriated $188 billion for climate related disasters over the last three years. just two months ago, the government accountability office released a g.a.o. report listing the federal government's vulnerability to

climate change impacts as one of its greatest areas of potential risks. climate change could increase investment portfolio risks by 10% over the next two decades by disrupting supply chains. those of us in congress who are noticing these problems, these cheages, these challenges, are not alone. according to gallup poll last month, 58% of the american public worry a fair amount or a great deal about climate change and its impact. 62% of republicans believe that america should take steps to address climate change. monday, arnold schwarzenegger joined the list of republican politicians who now acknowledge that climate change is a serious concern.

speaking at the price school of public policy in california. governor schwarzenegger said if we're smart we listen to our doctors. if wore stupid we ignore our doctors. and it takes a heart attack to realize we should listen. schwarzenegger said the national climate assessment report is our physical and these scientists can give us a prescription for what we need to do to improve our climate. it's our duty to listen to them and encourage action. action all over the country. and republican governor schwarzenegger is to be commended for his vision and stepping forward. another of my colleagues from california is with us here this evening and i notice that he may be willing to step in, he's been of great -- he's been greatly concerned about

infrastructure, climate, the environment, in a long and distinguished career in california politics and now here in congress. we're honored you would be willing to join us. i would be happy to yield to you if you would like to join n this conversation. mr. garamendi: thank you, i would be honored to join you. it's important that those of us, 435 of us, elected to represent the american citizens rise on the floor to speak to issues of great importance. when all is debated, at the end of those debates, i suppose we ought to say, was that important? we debated earlier about a piece of this puzzle, but this is the most consequential issue facing the entire globe. climate change is a very, very real challenge for the human

race. in the early 1990's, i was deputy secretary at the department of interior, asked by the president and vice president at the time to join in developing a strategy for america at the kyoto conference, the sec international effort to come to grips with this issue and we studied the various ramifications of climate change and predicted that what you just described in your opening statement, mr. blumenauer, would happen. and indeed it is happening. the climate is changing. it is warmer. there are more extreme events. and the impact is already being perceived in those things that are most unnoticed, which is the change in the vegetation and in the flora and fauna throughout the united states. as you hike through the mountains of the sierras, you have to go higher to see species, both animal and fauna

that lived at lower elevation, they're moving up the mown tape, those that can. those that can't, for example, some trees and plants, aren't able to remove their roots and move up the mountain and they'll become extinct. what do we do about it? there are many things we can do without actually harming the economy. in fact, there are many things we can do that will cause the economy to grow. for example, conservation. conservation of energy is an enormously important way to conserve our money, our energy supplies, and reduce carbon emissions. buzz much of the energy in the united states comes from carbon emissions. for example, how about better mileage in our cars? thankfully, we have president obama and the democratic administration that has taken very aggress i steps to reduce the consumption of gasoline and

diesel in our automotives and trucks, thereby conserving and saving us money and simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions. there are many, many other things. a bill we took up on the floor today that passed, my amendment wasn't adopted but nonetheless, using hydropower wisely wherever we can without harming the environment but also adding to the energy production. moving away from coal, which we know to be the single biggest source of carbon from power plants as we generate electricity, moving initially to gas-feared power plantings which have significantly less carbon emissions and in that process, taking the steps to move to renewable power sources of all kinds. hydro makes sense. about wind turbines. i don't have the statistics with me today but we've made an

enormous advancement in wind energy and solar energy and by the way if we're going to do that in the united states with our tax policies an give a tax rebate or credit, we ought to make it in america, have those turbines and solar panels made in america so we not only do what is right by the environment but also do what is right by the american workers so that we can rebuild our american manufacturing. there are many, many other concepts, all of which grow the economy. don't harm the economy at all but rather grow the economy. we do -- reducing emissions not only carbon emissions from the coal-fired power plants, redeucing rather dangerous substances like mercury and ars neck, so we should move these things forward. unfortunately, we are running up against a block of votes on the right side of this house, not right on policy, but right in -- but rather in location,

where threr politicing -- blocking the efforts we must make to come to grips with this. so my point is while this is a fundamental problem for this nation, it's also a fundamental opportunity for america to grow a new economy. we just heard read here on the floor not more than 30 minutes ago the statement by the president of his new budget in which we make -- in which he make this is point, that by addressing climate change, we also address the need to rebuild the american economy and to set it on a path where we can compete and sell these technologies and products all around the world because this is not just an american problem, this is a national, international problem, and all of us, wherever we are, whatever country we are in, we must take action. we must take action. we cannot let this slide. my plea, as you made yours, mr.

blumenauer, to our republican colleagues let's debate this. if you don't believe this is a problem, come to the floor and tell us why this is not a problem. if you do not believe we should manufacture wind turbines and solar panels here in the united states and deploy them rather than continuing with the coal-based economy, then tell us why. i wait for that debate. ened ale join you in it, mr. blumenauer. thank you for the privilege of joining you. i see we have another colleague and we may be -- we may reopen the west coast-east coast show mr. blumenauer. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. garamendi, for your comments and for your leadership in your native state of california on so many levels and your observation that there's a great deal of economic opportunity, the installed wind energy has exploded in recent years and not only are we producing the energy here in

the united states, it's american wind, it's not dollars we're exploiting -- mr. garamendi: there are those who would claim that this place is also a windy chamber. r. blumenauer: and part of what we should be harnessing, that's why i have a small wind energy tax credit i think we could install here in the chamber. but part of the recovery act would dramatically increase the amount of manufacturing here in the united states for that energy. we are joined with one of our colleagues, congressman tonko of new york, who has, before he came to congress, he's been very active in these areas, had his own series of activities providing leadership and technology and energy efficiency, we would be honored for you to join in the conversation. mr. tonko: thank you

representative blumenauer for leading us in this discussion, i appreciate the fact that you've brought us together for this dialogue, you've embraced a stronger sense of environment that tie ours economic recovery opportunity. i have to first and foremost mention, you're right, i headed the new york state energy research and development authority in the state of new york. my last work station before serving here in the house. and totally surrounded by consummate professionals who make it their role, their job, their advocacy, their vocation to make a difference with energy policy that allows us to be stronger stewards of our environment and to advance this effort for renewables, for innovation that allows us to reduce that mountain of electrons that we require for the workplace, the home place, for quality of life. and allows us to use that in much more useful, measured terms so that efficiency, energy efficiency, is seen as

our fuel of choice. that that comes before any of our energy thinking. and that provides for greater outcome that allows us to address this phenomenon of climate change. whether or not you believe in climate change and to me the scientific evidence is insurmountable, but see it as an opportunity for jobs, good-paying jobs, jobs that advance research and innovation and intellect and ideas as an economy, that can then transition us into a very powerful phase of economic recovery but i want to make certain i introduce onto this floor the discussion about mother nature and its grip on the 20th congressional district and before redistricting, when i represented the 1st. irene and lee, major storms, impacted my region. people had lost, representative blumenauer, everything for

which they ever worked. houses swept into the river. through storms that just through the force of mother nature overpowered communities. many houses destroyed. heritage crown jewel items in the region that were destinations. destroyed. covered bridge, historic in nature, wiped away through the ravages of water. this was a profound impact. lives lost. many injured. communities are still rebuilding, businesses are coming back, households are still abandoned. we witnessed volunteerism. a tremendous statement about the human heart, to respond to the needs of neighbors and at times total strangers. and then this year, seeing what had happened with the ravages of sandy, superstorm sandy, that impacted new england, impacted metro new york, new jersey, and beyond. pennsylvania.

these are a-typical situations. tornados, tropical storms, hurricanes as far north as upstate new york had been unheard of. and so there is a statement that mother nature is making. and we are faced with this climate change phenomenon, a concept that we need to address in scientific measure. in ways that allow us to constructively build a plan hat allows us to move forward, again, by enhancing the opportunities for job creation. what i had seen through the advocacy at nyserda, the state energy research and development authority, was this effort for us to be the keepers of the funds that would go forwards -- go towards innovating and transitioning into a better reliance on renewables. using in a benign way the environment, the environment qualities that surround us, the winds, the sun, the soil, the

water, in a way that allows us to respond to the needs that we have as a society for energy. and to do it through intellect. and the intellectual capacity of our nation is something we constantly cultivate through education, training, higher ed, apprenticeship programs. these are forces that can then bear good news of invention, of innovation. you know, i have the renewable center for g.e., the international center, in the heart of my district. we have the r&d lab, all of these places are working in a way to allow for us to look at new battery designs, the lynch pin to innovation that allows us to embrace, perhaps storage, that it makes it more predictable and -- of more useful capacity. investment in cable that allows for less line loss in the

delivery, in the transporting of electrons, to the source. there are many, many ways that we can be significantly sensitive to the demands on our society for energy and not to be wasteful, to be innovative in our approach and to green up our thinking. i'll say this and i know we have others that want to speak, but when i first arrived here in 2009, after the 2008 election, i was able to sit at the table when we formed arks democrats, -- formed, as democrats, a coalition of like-minded thinkers who want to take us in green directions, with progressive politics and enable us to think outside the barrel. to be able to be clever in our approach d clever in our approach to provide for new ways to meet society's needs, to open the door to job creation, to provide for soundness of outcomes in a

sustainable way that allows us to make a very bold and noble statement and that is typically this, that we inherit this environment for the moment. and it is our task, i believe, morally, to hand it over to the next generation in even better stead and that is daunting challenge these days. it's a daunting challenge but in my heart i believe that we can accomplish what we need to accomplish. we can respond to the challenge by opening up to new thinking and to not be restrained and restricted by status quo or by the disbelief that these things are happening right before our very eyes, right in the heart of our communities. and i wanted to make certain that i shared the impact on my district of mother nature and the clarion call to respond with urgency and with in depth knowledge driven by the passion to make a difference because there is always that pioneer spirit in america and we're at our best when we embrace that

inspiration and move forward as a nation. mr. blumenauer: thank you, congressman tonko. i appreciate your comments, i appreciate your leadership on this issue before and after you joined congress. and i like the notion about thinking outside the barrel. mr. tonko: you're a great leader also. thank you for leading us in this discussion and leading us radio teenly on -- routinely on sound transportation corridors, including those bicycles that don't pollute. mr. blumenauer: indeed. the cheapest electron is one that we don't have to use. mr. tonko: exactly. mr. blumenauer: and if if we just double american energy efficiency, we can cut carbon emissions 22% by 2020. and by the way, that would save merican consumers $327 billion a year. this is a tremendous opportunity to achieve savings,

generate economic activity and pay a dividend economically as well as environmentally. mr. tonko: and if i might just add to that statement. the many discussions i have had with constituents who say, where is the wisdom in sending hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign nations, oftentimes enemies to this country, who are using the american energy consumer dollars to train troops to fight our sons and daughters on the battlefield? this is a no-brainer. this glutinous dependency on fossil-based fuels, imported to keep our energy agenda alive, has got to stop and we need to move forward again with the progressive thinking that i know we can embrace in this house, get it done. so i thank you again for your leadership in this. mr. blumenauer: that last element is one that makes it so surprising that my republican friends don't want to talk

about dealing with climate change, energy efficiency, on the floor. especially given the fact that an amazing, stellar array of distinguished foreign policy and military experts, who have identified climate change and fossil fuel dependency, as a strategic vulnerability for this country. and why they have argued that we ought to move forward aggressively, dealing with climate change, dealing with energy efficiency. because it strengthens america rather than sending dollars, as you point out, to people who don't necessarily share our interests or our beliefs. it has been pointed out more than once that we are financing both sides of the war on terror. but i would like to turn if i could to my friend from memphis, congressman cohen, who started us out this evening with a terrific one-minute observation about dr. hanson's

retirement and we would welcome your thoughts and further observations about our moving forward. mr. cohen: thank you. i appreciate your leadership on this issue and your scheduling this special order. dr. james hanson did retire. he is considered the foremost climateologist in the world. as i understand it, he shared in a nobel prize in 2007. on this general type of issue. and he's been the leading proponent of our watching out for the future and the keystone pipeline -- he's the clarion call, i guess, on the problems that that would cause to the environment in the future. because the tar sands, to mine, is a very carbon-intensive activity. and you take away the forests, you also have to use a lot of water and a lot of energy in the production and just the production of the tar sands causes a great damage to the

environment, let alone the potential for damage to the -- our country when they would travel through the pipeline and then when they're burnt, it's another -- that's i guess lighting the carbon bomb. and letting it go off. dr. hanson studied climate and was one of the first to warn on this issue and he has retired. so we'll have his voice. i live in memphis and it's kind of the center of -- center region of oklahoma over for tornados and tornados have been much, much more prominent in the united states. this just isn't a quirk. mother nature can have her times and certain variances in her schedule but it's obvious what's been happening with the increase in tornados, drought, the floods, the mississippi river has hit the lowest spots it's ever been and it's flooded. the worst floods in memphis ever and this year the river was its lowest. we've gone from its highest to its lowest and something's happening. it's obvious something's happening. and scientists almost to one tell us that this is because of

what we've done to the environment. there might be two out of 100 scientists, it seems so unfortunate that the other side always grabs one or two of those people, and -- rather than the 98. we all have a debt, a duty to protect the earth. and i think that looking out for issues where we do conserve, as you've said, i've got a company in memphis, i met with last week, really mississippi, called griffin. and they have found a way to come up with a system that when a vehicle idles and they're talking about in their specific situation armored cars who have a lot of going around and they idle their engines when they pick up their financial deposits, it costs a lot to the environment and the burning of oil, when that car's running, and they have a way where the car can be turned off and the

idling of the engine can stop but nevertheless the vehicle still gets air conditioning and power and it can save a tremendous amount of gasoline and protect the environment. hopefully they can come within some grants that are already available to make companies that need to retrofit their vehicles to use that. but it is like raising our calf aye standards, that we have -- excuse me, save energy is the best way to save it is to not have to use it, to conserve on that. so there are opportunities we have. obviously we have to concentrate on this. we've got to look to alternatives. and wind and solar are two of them. but it's a disaster waiting to happen. and we just can't close our eyes to it. it's important that we take a leadership role in the world and i'd like to ask you, the defense department that made this -- raised those issues about it being important to our

national defense, were they referring to the droughts that they foresaw coming in the future with climate change and what might happen in some of those countries where they have less opportunity to produce food and have water and etc.? >> well, the threats are plentiful. one is just when we are subjectsing our armed services to -- subjecting our armed services to try and deal with the extremes we talked about. they're unpredictable. they have to be deal with drought, with flood, with extreme weather events. when we find a disruption that occurs in other parts of the world, with drought, with famine, it provides an instability that creates a security challenge for us. and the fact that we are vulnerable still in terms of energy supply for the united states and for our allies and the world economy can be held hostage. all of these were part of this

challenge. last but not -- last but not least, the department of defense, the united states military, is the largest consumer of energy in the world. energy supply, energy cost, energy efficiency is a matter of military readiness and operational efficiency. hen we spend $18 billion for air conditioning in iraq and afghanistan, that's a drain on the budget. when we are sending to the ront in tanker trucks, because we are so dependent on fossil fuel, they might as well have a great big bull's eye on them. we've lost thousands of mericans on these fuel convoys . so, being able to be energy -efficient, being able to

stretch the dollars, being able to promote american security is all part of an equation where these experts are saying, it ought to be a no-brainer, to move forward with energy efficiency, and security experts are deeply concerned about the disruptive impact globally of this uncertain climate effect. i notice that we are joined by my colleague from the state of oregon, congresswoman bonamici, who has long exercised leadership in areas of environment and energy in her previous career as a distinguished state legislator in oregon. i welcome her and would invite comments and conversation with us. mrs. bono mack: thank you, thank you so much -- ms. bonamici: thank you. thank you so much for leading this discussion about such an important topic. you know, the reality of what we're talking about is really impossible to deny. we've had numerous scientists testify in congress, and you mentioned dr. hanson, and i

want to mention that his first testimony in congress was 25 years ago, in 1988, watt was the first time that dr. -- is the first time that dr. hanson testified about the problems of climate change. 25 years ago. and since so many peer-reviewed studies have shown the reality of what we're facing and the human impact, a significant contributing factor. we have a lot of evidence, rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice, we're feeling the impact here in our cupry with record drought in the american southwest, historic severe weather events. you probably have already mentioned that according to national oceanic and atmospheric administration,

noaa, and nasa, 2012 was the warmest year on record in the united states and the nine warmest year on record have all occurred since 1998. i wanted to talk about some of the effects we're feeling in our home state of oregon. we have a reputation for quality wine, including the orld renowned pinot noir grove. the pinot grapes grow in temperature range from 57-61 degrees. a minor change causes significant damage to them. also the district i represent includes the shell phish industry. there's a thriving fishing community there. there's dun je ness crabs for sale in the -- dungeness crab for sale, but in recent years the changes have caused low

oxygen content in the water, hypoxia is the condition that results, it's creating dead zones in our oceans, it kills fish, crabs and other marine life. this is a serious problem that is affecting the industry other there. there's a shell phish hatchery over in tillamook that supplies three quarters of the oyster feed to produce shell phish up and town the cost. their stock of oyster seed is being threatened by the rising acidity of the ocean, which is again a serious impact of climate change so right there in oregon, there's two examples, economic examples of how our local industry is being ffected. oregonians, i know, as well as others around the country, are looking to us for solutions, looking to us for leadership system of we need to discuss

how we're going to mitigate and begin to reverse the environmental and economic effects. we have a great responsibility, not only to our own home state but to our country and the rest of the world. we need to take a leadership role. mr. blumenauer: i was just thinking as you were describing the threats on our oregon coast, what we just read in "the washington post" a couple of days ago here where the impacts of climate change are having a profound effect on the blue crab, they're breeding a super crab, they're growing more rapidly at the same time climate impacts are weakening the oysters. making them more vulnerable system of potential here of completely disrupting this critical part of the ecosystem in the chesapeake bay. i appreciate very much your joining in this conversation. you know, i wish that our republican friends would join

us in the invitation to actually debate this issue in the finest tradition of the house of representatives. there was a time when in this chamber there were echos of great challenge, debate, where people went back and forth with ideas to be able to bring out the best. we actually saw when the republicans took control, 23 months ago, one of the first things they kid was abolish the special committee on climate change and global warming and since then we haven't read really had an opportunity to ngage in discussion. mr. cohen: i appreciate you bringing up the hottest year, it gets hot in memphis but it does in washington. it's supposed to be 90 today. i suspect -- somebody can prove me wrong, but this may be the

hottest -- mr. blumenauer: it's the hottest. whether cohen: last week it was cold. it's not just the polar bears, i'm a big fan of polar bears but they're going to be eliminated because they're going to lose their ability to survive in their natural climate and the flora and fauna are at risk but what mr. blumenauer talked about defense, it made me think, in college, i thought a lot of don wolf, a smart man, we were talking about who was the most powerful person in the country and what were the most powerful interests, and i said about the mill stair -- military industrial complex and president eisenhower warned us in his last address about the military-industrial complex but what he warned us -- warned us

was the impact on the budget. don wolf said, that's all tied to one thing. oil. that's what it's about. and a lot of tissue because it runs on oil, mr. blumenauer so well pointed out, they're the most consuming user of oil and they also at the same time are spending much of their efforts defending the trade routes to get oil, and that's why the -- that's why in bahrain are defending the straits of hormuz and why iran has particular significance in the mideast. it's amazing what president eisenhower warned us, i don't know if that was part of his warning but maybe there was more truth to what he said, we probably should spend part of each day reflecting on president eisenhower's warning about the mill stair -- military-industrial compleblings and what it's done to our nation because that's where the budget has a great problem and that goes back to our dependence on foreign oil.

ms. bonamici: and it calls out for continued investment in alternative technology and energy, from electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, solar power, wind power. whether blum -- mr. blumenauer: bicycles. ms. bonamici: bicycles. we need to decrease our dependence on foreign oil. what we have debated here on the floor is how much we'll spend to clean up after disasters. that is something we have debate here on the floor. i want to point out that a recent g.a.o. report for the first time lists climate change as a significant financial risk to the federal government. we're not well positioned to address the fiscal exposure presented by climate change system of as a nation we become too familiar with consequences of waiting until the 11th hour to develop solutions. the time is now to work together, to begin to reverse those changes to develop

alternative tech knowledges -- technologies, to come up with policies that will begin to take on this serious problem and build our economy at the same time. even for those who dispute or ignore the scientific evidence of climate change, we can still discuss the economic gains we can make by investing in a clean energy economy and modernizing our infrastructure and seeking energy independence, also a national security issue as well, as you mentioned. >> mr. blumenauer: those 11 weather disasters last year cost us over $60 billion. it's creating uncertainty in agriculture, it's creating uncertainty in the business of insurance, where -- it's more difficult for them to be able to calculate what they're doing. it places more burden on the federal government because in many cases there aren't private alternatives available, that's why we had had to create flood

insurance. you're touching on an area that has profound economic consequences because of this environmental instability. mr. cohen: mr. blumenauer, let me can you this, we have worked together on the pipeline, but when people say, we need jobs, they can get this tar sand to china if they need to by going to the west, what do you think -- what do you tell people about these jobs and the effect on the future? mr. blumenauer: it's important to step back and evaluate what the economic employment opportunities are. because things that we do to rebuild and renew america in a sustainable way, the keystone has a few thousand temporary construction jobs and maybe a handful, i've heard various estimates a few dozen, a couple hundred, permanent jobs. and has as you point out significant environmental consequences. but when we're investing in

wind, solar, geothermal, these are areas that are producing far more jobs already and that they are using a sustainable source of energy that pays a continuing dividend over time, this wind is american, this geothermal energy is american, and it's renewable and doesn't cost us anything. mr. cohen: memphis borders arkansas, there was a pipeline problem over there, i think it might have been exxon, but they had a leak, that's kind of an expensive process. that's similar to the keystone pipeline a warning of what could occur? mr. blumenauer: energy transmission is something that's part of the broader equation. pipeline reliability is something we all need to be concerned about. but more fundamentally, we need to deal with the sources of energy what is driving them,

how we reduce carbon emissions, not -- how we shift the pieces around. the priority, i think, ought to be sustainable energy, more economic investment, reducing green house gas emissions, not cooking the planet, i recently had my first two grandchildren in the course of a few months. it was interesting to me, some of these dry debates we have that talk about, well, by 2100, sea levels may rise three or four -- that always seemed kind of remote to me. until i realized that these two young men, they live as long as their great grandmother, will be alive in the year 2100. and what we do as a congress helps shape the world they inherit. that's our responsibility.

that's why i deeply appreciate both of you being part of this discussion this evening and why i hope that our republican friends will join us in an actual debate of these policies, practices, what the choices are, and hopefully it may actually lead to action on the floor of the house for a the foreseeable future. ms. bonamici: i wanted to mention while you talk about energy, the great promise of wave energy as well work the coast. i don't have any grandchildren the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is reminded to address her remarks to the chair, not to another member. ms. bonamici: i know mr. blumenauer has grandchildren, i don't yet, but i do believe think about t to

the future. mr. blumenauer: i'm prepared to yield back unless my colleague from memphis has more to say on the issue? mr. cohen: i just want to say this is an important issue. mr. blumenauer: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. jones: thank you very much. on april 8, two days ago, 13 years ago, 19 marines crashed and burned in arizona. osprey is time, the the plane that goes from a helicopter mode to a plane mode. and at the time of the accident it was actually in an experimental phase. two years after the accident, i was here at the time when the

accident took place, i received a letter from one of the wives the co-pilot, gruber, and at the time of the accident, colonel john brau was flying the plane. the sad thing about it is why they had 19 marines on the back, the families do not know, quite frankly, the former commandant in the marine corps in the time of the accident, general jim jones, not a relation to me but i think the world of him, he said to me, i don't know why in the world they did not have sacks of weight in the back insed of 17 marines sitting back there. the problem is, the lawsuits are over, i've spoken to the lawyer in