Grace Napolitano

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 19, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 172 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on Ordering the Previous Question to H. Res. 620, Providing for consideration of H.R. 9, Small Business Tax Cut Act.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 19, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 173 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to the resolution, as amended, to H. Res. 620, providing for consideration of H.R. 9, Small Business Tax Cut Act.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, April 19, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 175 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on agreeing to the Levin Substitute Amendment to H.R. 9, Small Business Tax Cut Act.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 165 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' On Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 619 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 166 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to H. Res. 619 Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4348) to provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of multiyear law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 168 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on agreeing to the Ribble Amendment No. 2.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 169 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the motion to recommit on H.R. 4348--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 170 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on final passage on H.R. 4348--Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012, Part II.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 171 due to a family medical emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 2453--Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act, as amended.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

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

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

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

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

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

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

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

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

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

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

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 16, 2012, I was absent during rollcall vote No. 153 due to a family health emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on suspending the rules and agreeing to H.R. 4040--To provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Jack Nicklaus in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence and good sportsmanship in golf.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I couldn't agree with him more. My only objection is the small portion of the NEPA waiver. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Ranking Member Markey.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes. I do rise in support of the general premise--I repeat--the general premise of this legislation, but oppose the legislation as amended. I would like to mention that only 3 out of 15 Democrats support it. So while it is bipartisan, it is minor bipartisanship on this particular issue. H.R. 2842 does seek to generate additional hydropower at the existing Bureau of Reclamation facilities--that is, Federal properties--through developing new process of conduit and in-canal hydropower, which we should be developing at a greater speed and length. We cannot support this bill as amended, even though the original bill did also state it and an attempt was tried to be able to take this waiver language out on page 4, lines 12 to 15. We were unsuccessful, and we cannot support it because it does have a NEPA waiver, language that we cannot support. We are in support of the general intent. H.R. 2842, the Federal conduits, continue to fall under Reclamation Lease of Power Privilege process, LOPP. It requires offering a preference to irrigation districts or water users associations with an existing contract, those that already have a contract, which we support. It safeguards current project users by recognizing the project's primary authorized purposes and that no financial and/or operational costs will be incurred by the existing water and power users. The Federal Power Marketing Administrations are also--and I repeat-- are not obligated to purchase or market the power produced. The legislation does go a step too far and includes an unnecessary and unwise blanket exemption from a critical environmental law. If my colleagues on the other side had simply followed the advice of the National Hydropower Association and the conservation group American Rivers, we would have a noncontroversial bill which would have passed unanimously out of the House. We also received a letter from six environmental groups in opposition that I would like to include in the Record. Proponents for exempting the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, will argue that government regulatory red tape is preventing the development of more hydropower. Reclamation already has the authority to comply with NEPA through categorical exemptions, and the system is working. Categorical exclusions have been issued for hydropower sites under the reclamation's LOPP process at three specific sites in Colorado: the Lemon, which was in 1989; the Grand Valley Power Plant in 2011; and Jackson Gulch in 1995. NEPA compliance for other sites, in fact, has not been the bureaucratic chaos some would make it out to be. There are three projects in the home State of Colorado for my colleague, the sponsor of this bill. In Jordanelle, Utah, compliance took 15 months from start to finish to receive final permit in 2004. At Lake Carter, Colorado, it took 6 months to finish NEPA in 2010. At Ridgway, Colorado, an LOPP was just issued last month after completing a 15-month NEPA process. On the South Canal Drop 3 site in Colorado, a finding of ``no significant impact'' was just issued last month after a 15-month NEPA process. Developers and irrigators need clarity and certainty so their project can be developed. Waiving NEPA will not provide clarity and certainty. The stopgap for development is not NEPA; it's a lack of a Reclamation process. There must be a clear process in place for the development of hydropower at Reclamation facilities. I urge Reclamation to finalize the directives and standards as soon as possible, and it's my understanding the draft is already out to developers and irrigators for their view, and the final directives and standards will be completed by the end of this year. It is unfortunate that this legislation contains this controversial waiver. Without the NEPA exemption, this legislation would have been on suspension, and I do oppose the legislation and ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to this very sad portion of waiver of NEPA. March 6, 2012. Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations, on behalf of our millions of members and supporters are writing to express our opposition to the provision in Section 2 of H.R. 2842 that waives the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) with respect to small conduit hydropower projects at Bureau of Reclamation facilities. While we support the legislation's intent to encourage the responsible development of renewable energy projects, waiving NEPA reviews for Bureau of Reclamation projects is unnecessary and unacceptable. The National Environmental Policy Act is not a roadblock to the successful approval of conduit hydropower projects at Bureau facilities. We believe that this backward step will not accelerate hydropower development. Rather, our experience has shown us that attempts to shortcut or sidestep environmental review typically result in delayed projects. Successfully advancing the development of new energy resources, like conduit hydropower, requires us to do better than we have done with other forms of energy and other Bureau of Reclamation projects. While we do not oppose the development of conduit hydropower, it must be done responsibly and under all of the appropriate reviews necessary to make sure that such development is consistent with the public interest; a guarantee that NEPA provides. Therefore we respectfully request that you oppose H.R. 2842 unless the language requiring a NEPA waiver is struck from the bill. Sincerely, American Rivers, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Grand Canyon Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Wilderness Society.

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

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I do not.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with Mr. Gosar more on some of his presentation that the bureau would be able to expedite some of these projects, and they are working on that categorical exemption determination to be able to understand how they can expedite some of these projects. NEPA is not some radical piece of legislation. It was overwhelmingly approved by Congress more than four decades ago and signed into law by President Nixon. It is not an obstacle. It's a tool to be used to facilitate coordination, cooperation, and public input. It is not a barrier. It is a shield protecting our communities, yours and mine, from the unintended consequences that can occur when a big, clumsy Federal Government acts without thinking. NEPA does not and cannot prevent projects from going forward. They just require the government to analyze alternatives and, most importantly, seek public comment. Evidence that NEPA does not stop projects is plain. Our majority cannot provide a single example where NEPA prevented one of these small projects, the hydroprojects from moving forward. Most applications are granted expeditiously and easily. It also provides the Bureau of Reclamation all the flexibility necessary to apply NEPA quickly and efficiently to the projects. There is no delay. To oppose NEPA is to oppose public input. Again, it would then oppose public input. To oppose NEPA is to oppose thinking before we act. This unnecessary and unwise blanket waiver of NEPA should be struck from this bill and then this bill could be passed unanimously and go on to approval in our other body. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?