Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this is a poster child for I guess what could best be described as ``Greens Gone Wild.'' As part of the so-called Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, it is proposed to use taxpayer funds to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric dams on the Klamath that are producing 155 megawatts of the cleanest, cheapest electricity on the planet--that's enough to power over 150,000 homes--because, we're told, of catastrophic declines in salmon.

When I suggested building a salmon hatchery instead, I was informed there already is one. It produces 5 million salmon smolt each year, 17,000 of which return to that river as fully grown adults to spawn, but they are deliberately ignored in the population counts. To add insult to insanity, as they tear down these dams in the name of saving the salmon, they are actually tearing down the fish hatchery that actually is saving the salmon.

This amendment targets the study that is underway to do so. A policy that is as manifestly insane as this should not require $2 million of additional funding.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves $247 million by relieving taxpayers of having to subsidize solar energy research and development.

I am tempted to point out that solar power is not a new technology. Photovoltaic electricity generation was invented by Edmond Becquerel in 1836. That was 175 years ago. And in 175 years of continuing research and development and technological advancement, we have not yet been able to invent a more expensive way of generating electricity. Yet we're perfectly comfortable telling our constituents that we're taking another $250 million from their families to throw at this 175-year-old technology for no particular reason other than it makes us feel good.

I'm also tempted to point out that not only is this the most expensive way that we have ever invented to generate electricity, but it also adds nothing--I repeat, nothing--to our baseline power. Our electricity systems operate on an integrated grid, meaning that we have to constantly match the power going onto the grid with the power coming off the grid. And since there is no way to tell when a cloud passing over a solar array will immediately drop the output to zero, we have to construct an equal amount of reliable conventional power to back up that solar power. In other words, for every kilowatt of solar power we add to the grid, we also have to pay to add an additional kilowatt of backup power.

But the principal objection I have is this: This technology was truly on the verge of a breakthrough. After 175 years, investors would be tripping over themselves to get a piece of the action.

If they are, there's no need to subsidize it. And if they're not, we have no right to force American taxpayers to make investments that no investor in his right mind would make.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source