Tom McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would give to the Secretary of the Interior the ability literally to unilaterally veto this measure if he finds it would result in a loss of jobs. Now, let's be clear of what we're talking about here. This is the same Secretary of the Interior who came to the Natural Resources Committee in 2009 when Federal water diversions in California's Central Valley were throwing thousands and thousands of farm workers into unemployment. Before the committee, he admitted that he had the authority to stop the diversions and stop throwing these thousands of hardworking families into poverty, but he chose not to do so because he said it would be like admitting failure. This is the same administration that blissfully threw thousands of gulf war workers into unemployment by declaring a de facto moratorium on oil production in the gulf. This is the same administration that's blocking energy development in the Arctic tundra. This is the same administration that's torpedoed the Keystone pipeline and the thousands of jobs it would have created. And now the gentleman from Minnesota would give this same official and this same administration the power to shut down small hydroelectric facilities that could add thousands of megawatts of additional electricity to our energy supplies. I would assure the gentleman that the reason for this bill is because we fully expect it to produce a quantum leap in demand for small generators; and somebody's going to have to build them, and somebody's going to have to install them. That means more jobs. Now, if the gentleman is worried about jobs being lost in the regulatory bureaucracy because they won't have as many businesses to harass, I can assure him they have demonstrated over the years a tremendous creativity in finding new businesses to harass and new reasons to increase their budgets. But I say again, I don't believe it would be a good idea to put in the hands of this Secretary and this administration yet another tool to obstruct energy and job development. Now, high electricity prices might not be a problem in Minnesota, but I can assure the gentleman they are a serious problem in California; and that's why his amendment is so dangerous. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts that nothing in this measure has anything at all to do with oil production. Quite the contrary, this bill reduces our reliance on fossil fuels by bringing hundreds of thousands of megawatts of new, clean hydroelectricity to the grid. I don't understand the objection to this bill. This measure by Mr. Tipton does everything the environmental left says that it likes: At precisely no cost to taxpayers, it produces absolutely clean and renewable electricity in vast quantities, on projects that have already undergone environmental review, simply by installing small generators in existing pipelines and canals where there are no fish or no flora or no fowl of any kind. This is the alpha and omega of Mr. Tipton's bill. Authorize these simple projects on existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities. That's it. There are untold thousands of miles of pipelines and canals and aqueducts attached to these facilities that convey water by simple gravity. There is water in these existing facilities that is utterly devoid of any life whatsoever, and there is no conceivable environmental impact whatsoever. These existing pipelines, if equipped with simple hydroelectric generators, could generate electricity that would take several major multibillion-dollar hydroelectric dams across the West to produce. In fact, our committee took testimony that, in Colorado alone, the hydroelectric facilities' small generators that would be encouraged by this bill could produce as much power as is currently produced by the entire Glen Canyon Dam. Now, multiply that throughout the United States, and you begin to realize what a huge impact this could have on new, clean, affordable energy for America. Those hydroelectric generators are not going into these pipelines right now for one simple and utterly absurd reason: government regulations make it economically impossible to do so. Our subcommittee took testimony from farmers in water districts who were trying to install these generators; but instead of doing everything it can to assist them, this administration smothers them with endless regulatory delays, demands for wildly expensive environmental studies and exorbitant permitting fees. According to testimony before the committee that the gentleman from Colorado cited, the net effect of these environmental regulations can more than double the cost of these projects, simply pricing them out of reach. In one case, a witness told us that a $20,000 small generator project would have required $50,000 in permitting costs, and so it doesn't move forward. Congressman Tipton's bill, instead, welcomes these small hydroelectric generators by authorizing their placement in existing Bureau of Reclamation conduits. It invites existing operators and users to invest in these generators at no public cost. It establishes an office within the Bureau of Reclamation with the responsibility to assist projects, and it exempts them from paying for another costly, time-consuming, and pointless NEPA study when there is no conceivable environmental impact involved. These facilities already underwent the environmental process when they were built, when they were upgraded, or when their repayment contracts were renewed. It is simply a waste of time and money to put them through yet another review before these small generators can be installed. I mean, think about the implications just to farming alone. Some irrigation districts are forced to use diesel generators to pump water to the fields. Put hydroelectric generators in existing canals and pipelines, and they become virtually self-sustaining while reducing their reliance on other sources of electricity that produce air emissions. In addition, sales of canal-based electricity could generate local revenue for irrigators, which would help upgrade existing facilities and infrastructure, create jobs and relieve exhausted Federal taxpayers of these costs. The construction of these generators would mean new high-paying jobs for Americans. It is truly mystifying that a nation plagued by prolonged economic stagnation, chronic unemployment, and increasingly scarce and expensive electricity would adopt a willful and deliberate policy obstructing the construction of these inexpensive and innocuous generators in already- existing facilities. Mr. Chairman, there are fewer Americans working today than on the day that Barack Obama took office more than 3 long years ago. During that period, he has taken well over a trillion dollars from the earnings of hardworking American families to funnel to well-connected companies, claiming to create jobs. In the case of Solyndra, it penciled out to $450,000 per job, jobs that disappeared as soon as the government money ran out.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman. Yet here, with this measure, at no cost to these hardworking families, at no cost to the environment, simply by getting absurdly and utterly duplicative government regulations out of the way, we could add tens of thousands of megawatts of clean and cheap electricity to our domestic energy supply, produce permanent jobs, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, and lower the utility bills of American families. Our Nation desperately needs clean, affordable, and abundant electricity; and it desperately needs permanent jobs. To get them, it most of all needs common sense restored to its government. The progress the American people have made in doing that, as well as the unfinished business remaining before them, will be very precisely measured by the roll call on this bill.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this rule brings to the floor one of the most simple and sensible bills on energy development that we have yet heard. It is H.R. 2842, offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton). What it promises is this: At precisely no cost to taxpayers, freeing up absolutely clean electricity on a scale so vast that it would take several hydroelectric dams to duplicate, simply by relaxing the regulatory stranglehold, simply by getting government bureaucrats out of the way, this bill has the potential of adding thousands of megawatts of absolutely clean and renewable electricity to the Nation's energy supply, reducing utility bills, reducing reliance on fossil fuels, and, to answer the gentlelady from New York, adding thousands of permanent high-paying jobs to the Nation's economy. All that is necessary for this to happen is for government bureaucrats to get out of the way and allow people to place small hydroelectric generators in thousands of miles of existing pipelines, canals, and aqueducts. This doesn't involve new construction. The facilities are already there. It doesn't involve any adverse impact to the environment. These are water pipes and canals in which there are no fish of any kind. And yet this administration forces water users and developers to go through a lengthy, costly, and pointless environmental review process that literally doubles the cost of these projects and makes them cost prohibitive. The reason there are so few applications is because the requirements of this absurd law simply make these projects cost prohibitive, and it simply doesn't make sense to move forward with them. This bill simply says this: You don't need to go through that nonsense anymore. Now, why isn't this bill being taken up on suspension? It would be one of the all-time no-brainers. It passed the Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan vote. The reason that this debate is required is because this commonsense legislation is vigorously opposed by the environmental left; that is the measure of extremism from which this movement now suffers. Perhaps the best way to alert the American people to this extremism is through debate that this rule makes possible. A generation ago, in the 1960s, electricity was so cheap that some communities didn't even bother with electricity meters, and there's a reason for that. In those days, we were building hydroelectric dams that not only protected us from floods and droughts, but that delivered electricity for as little as 3 cents per kilowatt hour. At that price, an average household's electricity bill would come to about $30 a month. That dream seems surreal today. Today, government regulations are literally threatening the ability of this Nation to generate sufficient electricity to keep people's air conditioning and refrigerators running in the summer, just as similar policies prevent Americans from prospering from our vast petroleum reserves and nuclear power potential. It's no coincidence that the States with the most stringent regulations also have the highest electricity prices and the sickest economies. People of my State of California, the land of vast unrealized hydroelectric potential and a pioneer in nuclear power, now use less electricity per capita than any other State in the Union, and yet we pay among the highest electricity prices in the country. We also suffer from one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, despite ceaseless empty promises of green jobs. Now along comes this bill by Mr. Tipton of Colorado that does everything the environmental left claims it likes: It produces absolutely clean and renewable electricity in vast quantities at precisely no cost to taxpayers. It requires no new construction. All that's necessary to achieve this is to put small generators in existing pipelines and canals that have already passed environmental review and pose no conceivable environmental impact. Yet, instead of embracing this measure, these radical elements instead throw a conniption fit. Well, let them do that in public. Let the American people see this debate. Let them see for themselves the nihilistic ideology behind this movement and how it is practiced by those in this Congress who share and support it, and then let the American people judge. I think the debate over this bill will offer our fellow citizens a real insight into this movement, and I support the resolution that makes this debate possible.

Mr. McCLINTOCK

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, it is odd, very odd to hear the argument again in this Hall that a State's right to deny basic freedoms to its citizens trumps the 14th Amendment to our Constitution. The last time we heard this argument in this Hall, it involved citizens' civil rights. Now it is the citizens' water rights. But make no mistake: it is the same old saw. The reason we have a 14th Amendment to our Constitution is because its Framers recognized that States could become abusive of the rights of their citizens, including their property rights, including their water rights, and the Federal Government had a responsibility and a duty to protect them. A responsibility and a duty specifically vested in this Congress, a responsibility and a duty that we exercise in the bill that the gentleman from California would have us gut. Well, what does the Constitution actually say on the subject? It says: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. And it grants Congress the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. Let us turn to the provisions of the bill that the gentleman objects to. It is Title IV. It directs the Interior Secretary, in the operation of the Central Valley Project, a Federal project, I might add, to strictly adhere to State water rights laws and priorities. It doesn't trample State water rights; it invokes and enforces them. Title IV goes on further to direct the Secretary to strictly adhere to and honor water rights and priorities that were obtained or existed pursuant to various sections of California water code. I repeat, it doesn't trample States' rights. It invokes them and enforces them. This sets no precedent for other States. California is the only State in the country with a coordinated operations agreement that combines a Federal project, the Central Valley Project, with a State project, the State Water Project, and does so, by the way, at California's request and with California's consent. In fact, Congress has a long history of citing that Coordinated Operations Agreement to invoke preemptive authority over this coordinated Federal and State project. The Central Valley Project Improvement Act in 1992 is replete with such preemptions. Mr. Speaker, fewer Americans are working today than were working the day that this administration was sworn into office. This administration's actions caused thousands and thousands of hardworking farm working families to lose their jobs. This measure solves that travesty. The same administration that is blocking the thousands of jobs that the Keystone pipeline would produce has also vowed to veto this measure. I think the American people are going to have a great deal to say about that in coming days. Ironically, the provision that the gentleman would have us remove was specifically placed in the bill because he and his colleagues objected that its original provision might cause the State government to actively undermine the rights of its senior water rights holders. Now that was a legitimate concern. Senior water rights holders in northern California were scared to death that they might have the State undercut their water rights, and this bill specifically addresses that concern. To address that concern, this provision was placed in the bill, and now the gentleman objects to it. The gentleman first attacked the bill because the bill lacked this protection, and now he attacks the bill because it has that protection. The gentleman knows what I'm talking about. The gentleman knows that I have great affection for him, but I must say he is becoming exceedingly hard to please. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the devastation of the Central Valley of California occurred because of the breaking of a Federal promise--a Federal agreement. The gentleman from California says, oh, it wasn't an agreement at all; it was just a suggestion. Well, that's not what the Interior Secretary said at the time. He said, a deal is a deal, and if it turns out there's a need for additional water, it will come at the expense of the Federal Government. The Senator who carried the conference report on the Senate floor said it was a deal, a temporary measure until additional water was brought online. This bill redeems that promise. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts would have us break that promise forever. As I stated earlier, we keep hearing, well, that was then and this is now. Science has changed and so should our policy. If that's the case, then the Federal Government's promises are worthless, and they mean nothing. That was a promise agreed to by all parties. It was broken by the Federal Government. What they're referring to is not science. It is ideology masquerading as science, so has said the Federal court. Now we have news from the Klamath that one of the scientists involved in the reports is now charging that the Department subverted science for political ends. It is time that the ideological zealotry that threw thousands of families into unemployment be replaced with practical and fact-based solutions that keep our promises. It's time that we placed a higher value on human lives than on the bureaucratic dictates of the environmental left. That's what this bill does, and that's what the gentleman's amendment would prevent. Finally, the gentleman would insert a requirement that the act require the best available science to move forward. Well, the gentleman knows that what is termed ``best available science'' was literally thrown out of court with the court saying not only was it not the best available science; it wasn't science at all. The only practical effect of the provision is to provide employment for the only growth sector left in California's economy--environmental lawsuits intended not to win, because ultimately they do lose, but rather to delay projects indefinitely and make them cost prohibitive to pursue. But I compliment the gentleman on his creativity. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's memory problems seem to have struck again. I do not recall making such a statement either, or intending to make such a statement. What I have said is that that 800,000 acre feet, which now will become a ceiling rather than a floor, can provide the opportunity for recycling under this bill so that that 800,000 acre feet, once it has served its environmental purposes, may then be used by communities throughout the bay area. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, more than any other, focuses on the central issues surrounding the bill. What comes first, people or fish? In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act carved out 800,000 acre-feet to be dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes temporarily. In fact, during a Senate debate, the floor manager of the conference report, Senator Malcolm Wallop, pointed out that that 800,000 acre-feet of CVP yield is up-front water designed to deal with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and delta requirements while the various mitigation actions are undertaken. The various mitigation actions were to build more supply so that that 800,000 acres taken from the farmers would then be returned to them. That 800,000 acre-feet came out of allocations of the Central Valley Project, were agreed to by all sides that were incorporated in the Bay- Delta Accord, which this bill restores. But somewhere along the line, the Federal Government began treating this allotment as a floor rather than as a ceiling. Back in the mid-1990s, a zealous official in the Interior Department, under Bill Clinton, ordered that more than 1 million acre-feet of water appropriated by the Central Valley Project be used for purposes not authorized under water rights permits issued by the State of California. That preempted State water rights laws, I might add, and I believe the gentleman from California knows him. In fact, I believe the gentleman from California is him. This bill reestablishes the 800,000 acre foot allotment agreed to by all sides when Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt promised ``a deal is a deal.'' This provision redeems the promise that was broken by Mr. Babbitt's deputy, and this is the provision that the gentleman would have us delete. I might also add that under this bill, the 800,000 acre feet of water can be recycled by communities once it has met its environmental purpose rather than being lost to the ocean. That's 800,000 acre feet of additional water for communities like his. Of that, a little more than one-tenth of 1 percent would have gone to the little town of Cattlemen City. That's irrelevant because this provision, too, the gentleman was proposing to strike. The contract holders that paid for this project gave up 800,000 acre feet of water with the promise it would be a temporary ceiling. One broken promise after another changed this to a permanent floor, claiming more and more water be expropriated from the people who paid for it and dumped into the Pacific Ocean. This measure sets that injustice right. With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was rejected on a bipartisan vote when the gentlelady introduced it in markup, and it deserves a similar fate on the House floor. I mean, let's be clear about what this does. It singles out Central Valley Project participants to pay a punitive surtax that is imposed on no other Bureau of Reclamation project in the United States. This surtax would be passed on to consumers through higher prices. The Central Valley Project was already singled out for one punitive tax, about $50 million annually, by Congress in 1992 to fund an array of environmental slush funds. Now, I believe that beneficiaries should pay the cost of the water projects, but they should pay only the cost of those projects and no more. These are not cash cows for the Federal Government to milk until they're dry. When the left speaks of corporate farms, you know, they often leave out the fact that virtually every family farm is incorporated, and that's who we would be singling out for what amounts to a special tax. That tax can be paid in one of two ways: by employees through lower wages or by consumers through higher prices. I have a modest suggestion for the gentlelady. Perhaps we should start putting people back to work rather than running them out of business. I have often criticized her colleagues for policies that have created the conditions that indirectly send water prices through the roof, but this proposal is quite bold. This proposal does so directly and dramatically. That's why several of her colleagues on the Democratic side abandoned her in committee and why they would be well advised to do so again on the floor. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. First, I want to correct one thing. I said that 40 years is common throughout the western United States. I do need to point out again that the Hoover Dam was actually given a 50-year contract. The amendment fully addresses the concerns that were expressed by the gentleman over the successive renewal provisions in the contracts. I think we've made it very clear that the conditions of the contracts have to be agreed to by both parties. The gentleman, himself, in markup said he could live with 40 years. He has obviously reconsidered. This measure simply sets right a wrong that was done in 1992, and it treats the CVP as every other reclamation project. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Perhaps my friend from California was not listening when I presented the manager's amendment which addresses this very subject. As I pointed out to him--apparently he has a short memory--he had objected to the successive renewal provision that he claimed was in the bill but very specifically said he felt he could probably live with 40 years on the amount of time for these contracts. As I've tried to point out to him repeatedly, the measure, and explicitly as amended, does restore the contracting provisions used throughout the Western United States for contracts involving CVP water. The gentleman says that his amendment puts the contract provisions back to the original law. No, his amendment does not do that. This bill puts the contract provisions back to the original law. That's the reclamation law of 1939 as amended July 2, 1956, the very provisions that are restored in this bill. What his measure does is to continue to single out the Central Valley Project uniquely among all the reclamation projects across America as the one project that can only get 25-year financing. The problem, of course, with that is that these contracts require a degree of certainty over the long-term costs. That's why the 40-year contracts are in place with every other project of the Bureau of Reclamation in the United States, just as was the fact for the Central Valley Project until it was amended by Congress in 1992. The gentleman says this overrides State law. The CVPIA overrode State law, and the gentleman was very supportive of that at the time. He obviously has concerns over long-term memory loss as well. I would simply point out that this measure simply says that the CVP contracts will be treated on the same basis as every other contract in America. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow the Interior Secretary to suspend this bill if he finds that one job is lost north of the delta. Well, this is the same Interior Secretary who appeared before the Natural Resources Committee in 2009. At the time, thousands of farmworkers were thrown into unemployment by the water diversions. Hundreds of thousands of acres of productive farmland were turned into a dust bowl. And in the midst of the crisis, he admitted that as Interior Secretary, he had the authority to stop the diversions and end the agony of the Central Valley, but he chose not to do so because, in his words, ``It would be like admitting defeat.'' And this is the man that the gentleman from California would give the power--upon finding a single lost job in northern California--to plunge our State into another government-created dust bowl? I don't think so. The Northern California Water Association represents the farms and communities of northern California and they write of this bill: The bill, if enacted, would provide an unprecedented Federal statutory express recognition of and commitment to California's State water rights priority system and area of origin protections. This is important for the region to provide sustainable water supply for productive farmlands, wildlife refuges and managed wetlands, cities and rural communities, recreation and meandering rivers that support important fisheries. So speaks northern California. Mr. Chairman, fewer Americans are working today than on the day that this administration took office. We will not put in the hands of that administration the power to destroy still more jobs, which this amendment cynically seeks to do.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, to answer the gentleman very specifically, the contract negotiations are conducted in precisely the same manner as every other contract in the Western United States. I would remind the gentleman and the gentlelady who carried the legislation, this Congress approved a 50-year contract for Hoover power users. And I would remind my friend, the gentleman from California, that during the markup, he specifically said that he could probably live with 40 years. I hope that is still the case. I hope that these amendments assuage his concerns, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, if I could now answer the question of the gentlewoman that she didn't seem to want to hear, it is this: This act applies--the act of July 2, 1956--to all contracts in the CVP under this legislation. That legislation states: The Secretary of the Interior shall include in any long- term contract hereafter entered into, if the other contracting party so requests, for renewal thereof under stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the parties. And I repeat: under stated terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the parties. This is not automatic renewal. This is negotiated anew between the government and the contractor. The only exception to that act under this bill is to accommodate the early repayment of Federal loans, which would be a boon to the cash-strapped Federal Treasury. Mr. Chairman, as we have repeatedly tried to explain to the minority, this measure simply applies the same standards to the CVP as are applied to all other water contracts throughout the western United States. It was a punitive act by this Congress in 1992 that reduced the amount of time in these contracts from 40 years to 25 years exclusively for the CVP. This legislation sets that right and returns the CVP to equal treatment with any other water project in the western United States. I reserve the balance of my time, unless the gentlelady has closed.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses two concerns that have been raised by opponents of the bill during the committee markup and here on the floor today. A great deal of time during that markup and more today was spent addressing concerns that the bill provides for 40-year contracts that can be renewed each year. The minority charged that this amounts to de facto privatization of a public resource. Well, we have tried over and over to explain to them that 40-year successive renewal contracts are the rule in Western water law, and the 25-year provision for the Central Valley Project was actually the exception. Indeed, the CVP used to operate with a 40-year provision until that was changed in 1992. This amendment makes it absolutely crystal clear, I certainly hope, that the contract provisions for the Central Valley Project must be in conformity with the act of July 2, 1956, that amended the Reclamation Projects Act of 1939. These provisions govern all reclamation projects throughout the western United States and treats the CVP contracts no differently. I hope that this provision settles this issue. The second substantive provision, also included in deference to opponents of the measures, arises from an amendment that intends to expedite four CALFED surface water projects. It was charged that the wording would have interfered with authorization of the project. This amendment makes it crystal clear that these four projects are authorized as long as non-Federal financing is used. This clears the way for local, State, and private funds to be applied immediately to the construction of these facilities. The rest of the amendments are technical. They remove superfluous language, correct misspellings, and correct inadvertent omission. I reserve the balance of my time.