Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 174 (Wednesday, December 2, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 174 (Wednesday, December 2, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H8952-H8965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2015

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 542 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 8.
Will the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) kindly resume the
chair.

{time} 1921

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 8) to modernize energy infrastructure, build a 21st
century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster America's energy
security and diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency and government
accountability, and for other purposes, with Mrs. Black (Acting Chair)
in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 25 printed in House Report 114-359 offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) had been disposed of.

[[Page H8953]]

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Cramer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed in House Report 114-359.
Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE __--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. ____. VOLUNTARY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT OUTSIDE RIGHTS-OF-
WAY.

(a) Authorization.--The Secretary of the Interior or the
Secretary of Agriculture may authorize an owner or operator
of an electric transmission or distribution facility to
manage vegetation selectively within 150 feet of the exterior
boundary of the right-of-way near structures for selective
thinning and fuel reduction.
(b) Status of Removed Vegetation.--Any vegetation removed
pursuant to this section shall be the property of the United
States and not available for sale by the owner or operator.
(c) Limitation on Liability.--An owner or operator of an
electric transmission or distribution facility shall not be
held liable for wildlife damage, loss, or injury, including
the cost of fire suppression, resulting from activities
carried out pursuant to subsection (a) except in the case of
harm resulting from the owner or operator's gross negligence
or criminal misconduct.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chair, this amendment simply authorizes the
voluntary--and I stress voluntary--vegetation management within 150
feet of the exterior boundary of the right-of-way near structures on
U.S. Forest Service land.
As a former energy regulator and a utility commissioner, I know there
are many threats to power lines running across this country. Most of
the time, this comes down to vegetation, as odd as it might seem, but
especially in areas where there are a lot of trees and that are remote
areas hard to get to.
Off-right-of-way vegetation management on these lands are the
responsibility of the United States Forest Service. But for any number
of reasons, they aren't conducting this critical work to ensure the
reliability of our electricity.
Utility companies don't want to do the work off their right-of-way
due to the lack of clarity in their legal liability or a strict
liability standard. This amendment provides that legal certainty and
holds utilities accountable for gross negligence or criminal
misconduct.
Lastly, Madam Chair, it is important to note that this amendment
demonstrates that this is not--and I stress is not--a backdoor to
logging and prevents the sale of the vegetation by the utility and
clarifies it shall be the property of the United States.
Madam Chair, I would also emphasize that the Edison Electric
Institute and the American Public Power Association support this
amendment.
Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I want to stress that this authorizes
voluntary vegetation management within 150 feet of the exterior
boundary of the right-of-way, prevents the sale of vegetation, and
limits legal liability. I think it is a good amendment.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, the manager's amendment to H.R. 8 already
includes a provision which would hand over management of vast swaths of
U.S. public lands to private corporations and other utility providers
under the guise of preventing forest fires.
This provision was inserted in the dead of night, and the full House
won't get to vote on it. This is a terrible way to treat our public
lands.
As if this weren't enough, this amendment would go even further,
allowing electric utilities to clear-cut a football field-length swath
of national forest adjacent to transmission rights-of-way.
It would also shift liability for fire damage caused by transmission
infrastructure from the utilities to the American taxpayers, and that
is just not right.
The Forest Service and the BLM are already working with utilities to
improve right-of-way maintenance, and both agencies testified before
the Natural Resources Committee that prior agency approval is not
necessary for emergency vegetation maintenance work.
Mr. Huffman offered a commonsense amendment at markup which would
have required proactive planning by utilities in coordination with land
managers to identify and address potential fire threats, but every
Republican voted against it. Instead, they are supporting legislation
which would lead to less responsible stewardship of the American
people's forests.
According to the National Interagency Fire Center, power lines were
responsible for causing only 0.03 percent of forest fires in past 5
years.
Madam Chair, if Republicans were serious about preventing and
fighting forest fires, they would work with us to adequately fund the
Forest Service and fix the problem of fire borrowing, which last year
burned up 52 percent of the agency's budget.
But this isn't about solving a problem. This is about control. It is
regrettable that House Republicans seek to give away the people's land
to private interests. It is outrageous that this would happen.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chair, I just want to correct a couple of the
statements made sincerely by the opposition to this. I want to be clear
that the cost of this is borne not by the taxpayers, but by the
utilities themselves. The reason that they are not able to do it now,
of course, is because of a lack of clarity and the liability. So this
simply clears that part of it up.
Again, I want to get back to I was a regulator for nearly 10 years.
Some people may remember not so many years ago a major rolling brownout
that led to blackouts in the northeastern part of this country.
All of that was caused by trees growing into transmission lines. It
has a cascading effect. And, yes, if it is a large forest, those trees
growing into transmission lines can also create forest fires.
This is a very basic approach. Most of the arguments that the
gentleman raised are to the underlying bill, not to this amendment.
This amendment is very straightforward.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Dakota
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Duffy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27
printed in House Report 114-359.
Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 7001. ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall ensure that the requirements
described in subsection (b) are satisfied.
(b) Requirements.--The Administrator shall satisfy--
(1) section 4 of Executive Order 12866 (5 U.S.C. 601 note)
(relating to regulatory planning and review) and Executive
Order 13563 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) (relating to improving
regulation and regulatory review) (or any successor Executive
order establishing requirements applicable to the uniform
reporting of regulatory and deregulatory agendas);

[[Page H8954]]

(2) section 602 of title 5, United States Code;
(3) section 8 of Executive Order 13132 (5 U.S.C. 601 note)
(relating to federalism); and
(4) section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, today I rise to talk about a commonsense
amendment, an amendment that takes aim at excessive bureaucratic
rulemaking at the EPA.

{time} 1930

The EPA has long been known to issue onerous and costly rules with
little regard to the impact on American businesses and the families who
run those businesses.
According to some estimates, 17 of the EPA's major rules implemented
between 2000 and 2013 have imposed an annual economic impact of $90
billion--a $90 billion annual impact per year, which means real jobs
and a real impact on our economy.
Adding to the frustration, the EPA often ignores longstanding
executive orders that require them to improve their own regulatory
coordination planning and reviews. These executive orders were issued
under the Clinton and Obama administrations, two administrations that
have a very positive outlook towards the EPA. By no stretch of the
imagination do we consider them conservatives.
These orders require departments, but not independent regulatory
agencies like the EPA, to follow certain guidelines when it comes to
major rules that would have a dramatic impact on State, local, or
tribal government, or private sector expenditures in the aggregate of
more than $100 million a year. So those are big rules that have big
impacts.
The mercury rule put forward by the EPA is a prime example of that.
It was going to cost $10 billion. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court
struck down that rule because the EPA unreasonably failed to consider
the cost. My amendment would require the EPA to actually follow
existing requirements to improve regulatory planning, coordination, and
reviews.
American families and businesses can't afford the EPA to continue
with duplicative and overreaching regulations. The EPA should have to
follow the same rules that other departments in American government
must follow.
Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DUFFY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. I just want to say to the Chair and colleagues, this
amendment requires the EPA to satisfy regulatory planning review
requirements established by both the Clinton and Obama administrations.
I think the amendment is a good one, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment
which would require EPA to satisfy within 30 days certain regulatory
requirements included in three executive orders in two sections of the
U.S. Code. This amendment is a solution in search of a problem.
EPA, in carrying out its responsibilities to write regulations as
required by various statutes--for example, the Clean Air Act and the
Clean Water Act--already complies with the EPA's specific
responsibilities included in the three executive orders and two
sections cited in this amendment.
I say ``EPA'' specifically because some of these laws and executive
orders impose ongoing obligations on these agencies and place
responsibility on parties other than the EPA--for example, the Vice
President and the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. In such
cases, it will not be possible for EPA to ``ensure that the
requirements of subsection (b) are satisfied,'' as the amendment
requires.
In addition, some matters, such as the publication of the Regulatory
Flexibility Agenda in the Federal Register, as cited in section 602 of
title 5 of the U.S. Code, are handled by the General Services
Administration on behalf of other Federal agencies and are therefore
similarly outside of the EPA's control.
Moreover, Madam Chair, this amendment has the potential to lead to
confusion in the future because it requires the EPA also to satisfy
requirements in any successor executive orders that may establish
requirements applicable to the uniform reporting of regulatory and
deregulatory agendas.
What happens if these successor executive orders are not consistent
with the current ones? Then we have a situation where EPA is forced to
comply with competing executive orders, leading to unnecessary
confusion.
Let's avoid this possibility by defeating this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, some of my friends across the aisle's
arguments are: Don't let the people know. Let's not be transparent.
Let's have the EPA implement rules with no comment, no transparency,
and no input from the American people.
That is not what our Founders envisioned. They envisioned a form of
government where it was transparent and we all had a say in the
process. These aren't radical ideas. This is common sense.
Listen, a quote: ``Regulations shall be adopted through a process
that involves public participation.'' That wasn't from Ronald Reagan or
George Bush. That was Barack Obama.
``Each agency, where feasible and appropriate, shall seek the views
of those who are likely to be affected.'' Not Ronald Reagan, not George
Bush, but Barack Obama.
This stuff makes sense. Open the process up, let the American people
see the impact and the rules that are being proposed, just like in
every other government agency. The EPA shouldn't get special treatment.
Transparency, good government, American involvement from the people
in the process is what this amendment is about. I encourage all of my
colleagues to support good government and a great amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, let me just say that this process with the
EPA is very transparent, they do consider costs, and I disagree with
the gentleman.
I urge opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28
printed in House Report 114-359.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Covered civil action.--The term ``covered civil
action'' means a civil action containing a claim under
section 702 of title 5, United States Code, regarding agency
action (as defined for the purposes of that section)
affecting a covered energy project on Federal land.
(2) Covered energy project.--
(A) In general.--The term ``covered energy project''
means--
(i) the leasing of Federal land for the exploration,
development, production, processing, or transmission of oil,
natural gas, coal, geothermal, hydroelectric, biomass, solar,
or any other source of energy; and
(ii) any action under the lease.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``covered energy project'' does
not include any dispute between the parties to a lease
regarding the obligations under the lease, including any
alleged breach of the lease.

SEC. 7002. EXCLUSIVE VENUE FOR CERTAIN CIVIL ACTIONS RELATING
TO COVERED ENERGY PROJECTS.

Venue for any covered civil action shall lie in the United
States district court in which the covered energy project or
lease exists or is proposed.

SEC. 7003. TIMELY FILING.

To ensure timely redress by the courts, a covered civil
action shall be filed not later

[[Page H8955]]

than the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of
the final Federal agency action to which the covered civil
action relates.

SEC. 7004. EXPEDITION IN HEARING AND DETERMINING THE ACTION.

The court shall endeavor to hear and determine any covered
civil action as expeditiously as practicable.

SEC. 7005. LIMITATION ON INJUNCTION AND PROSPECTIVE RELIEF.

(a) In General.--In a covered civil action, a court shall
not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court
finds that the relief--
(1) is narrowly drawn;
(2) extends no further than necessary to correct the
violation of a legal requirement; and
(3) is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the
violation.
(b) Duration.--
(1) In general.--A court shall limit the duration of
preliminary injunctions to halt covered energy projects to
not more than 60 days, unless the court finds clear reasons
to extend the injunction.
(2) Administration.--In the case of an extension, the
extension shall--
(A) only be in 30-day increments; and
(B) require action by the court to renew the injunction.
(a) In General.--Sections 504 of title 5 and 2412 of title
28, United States Code (commonly known as the ``Equal Access
to Justice Act''), shall not apply to a covered civil action.
(b) Court Costs.--A party to a covered civil action shall
not receive payment from the Federal Government for the
attorneys' fees, expenses, or other court costs incurred by
the party.

SEC. 7006. LEGAL STANDING.

A challenger that files an appeal with the Department of
the Interior Board of Land Appeals shall meet the same
standing requirements as a challenger before a United States
district court.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment
to H.R. 8. The Gosar-Bridenstine-Yoho amendment ensures timely review
for legal challenges of energy projects and limits attorneys' fees for
such challenges in order to discourage frivolous lawsuits and foster
American energy production.
This amendment will streamline the process and encourage production
of natural gas, hydropower, clean coal, geothermal, solar, oil,
biomass, and all other sources of energy that are produced on Federal
lands.
Specifically, this amendment requires that U.S. district courts hear
and determine covered civil action challenges as expeditiously as
practical and that all covered actions be filed within 90 days of the
final Federal agency action.
This amendment is a responsible, commonsense step that a government
accountable to the people should take to show proper stewardship of the
public's dollar, time, and resources. If you support transparency and
cutting red tape that is holding up energy development, then you should
support this amendment.
Just this week, the House passed legislation unanimously in the form
of H.R. 3279, the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act. This
bipartisan bill tracks how much money is paid out under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, EAJA, and from which agencies. This legislation
was necessary because, while Congress used to track such information,
these practices were stopped in 1995.
The Gosar-Bridenstine-Yoho amendment improves on this excellent
bipartisan work by limiting attorney fees and frivolous lawsuits
against covered energy products, including renewables.
While no one knows the exact cost of EAJA payouts, as they have
occurred untracked and in the dark for 20 years, the Government
Accountability Office last reported in 2009 that special interest
Washington, D.C., lawyers were billing the Federal Government at
exorbitant rates, as high as $750 an hour.
It seems only appropriate that H.R. 3279 should be signed into law,
those reporting requirements should kick in, and our amendment should
be adopted before the Federal Government squanders more taxpayer money
paying out D.C. trial attorneys who specialize in holding up American
energy production.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop supports our commonsense
amendment.
Our amendment is endorsed by the Americans for Limited Government;
the American Petroleum Institute; Anglers United, Inc.; Arizona
Builders Alliance; the Arizona Farm Bureau; Arizona Liberty; Arizona
Pork Council; AZ BASS Nation; the Bass Federation; Concerned Citizens
for America; Gavel Resources; Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative
Association; the Rural Public Lands County Council; Shake, Rattle and
Troll Radio; Sulfur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative; the Yuma
County Chamber of Commerce; and countless citizens around the country
who are tired of red tape and bureaucracy holding up American energy
production.
I thank the chair and ranking member for their tireless efforts on
the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act, and I
strongly support H.R. 8.
I urge my colleagues to support the Gosar-Bridenstine-Yoho amendment.
Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for the amendment.
We have talked to the Natural Resources Committee staff. Obviously,
that is something that Chairman Bishop supports.
This amendment does ensure the timely review for legal challenges of
energy projects. It is a worthy amendment, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment to H.R. 8.
This amendment is another example of pro-corporate, anti-
environmental legislation designed by large corporations to restrict
access to the courts for the average citizen.
The Gosar amendment ignores separation of powers by telling the
Federal courts how to do their job, restricting the type of relief a
court can grant, and penalizing successful challenges brought under the
Equal Access to Justice Act. This, in turn, limits access to legal
relief for those challenging government decisions.
Let's say you are a farmer or a rancher or a landowner and you live
adjacent to Federal land that is being leased out to an energy company
for fracking and you are worried about what is going to happen to your
drinking water, you are worried about the price of your house, and you
are worried about the health of your children. Well, this amendment
will greatly interfere with your ability to challenge the decision of
the Federal agency granting the permit. It will tie the hands of the
courts in terms of deciding the case in a fair and just way.
For nearly 70 years, the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, has
served as the foundation for administrative agency action and ensures
that agency action taking place in the rulemaking process is fair,
efficient, and flexible enough to accommodate the myriad of agency
actions it governs along with the challenges of daily life.
Judicial review of agency action is a hallmark of the APA, and it is
critical to ensuring that government action does not harm or adversely
affect the public. The Gosar amendment would discard decades of wisdom
and jurisprudence preserving the right of judicial review.
First, it would reduce the statute of limitations for judicial review
of agency action under the APA to 90 days. This is down from 6 years
for most claims brought against the United States in cases involving
onshore and offshore energy leasing, development, and transmission on
Federal lands.
This razor-thin window for review would effectively immunize
government action involving energy projects from public accountability,
allowing those agencies to opt out of our civil justice system.
Second, the amendment limits a judicial stay of final agency action
by requiring courts to only consider whether relief would be the least
intrusive or narrowly drawn relief possible to correct a violation.
Courts, however, typically consider other things, such as where the
public

[[Page H8956]]

interest lies. This sweeping limitation would dramatically interfere
with the courts' ability to provide relief, tilting the outcome against
the public interest.
Lastly, this amendment slams the door to the courthouse by
prohibiting access to funds under the Equal Access to Justice Act. By
enacting the Equal Access to Justice Act, Congress recognized that
individuals and organizations should not be deterred from challenging
unjustified governmental action simply because it costs too much.
For three decades, veterans, seniors, persons with disabilities,
small businesses, and nonprofit organizations from across the
ideological spectrum have relied upon the Equal Access to Justice Act
to challenge illegal government action. This amendment would cripple
the rights of those concerned or opposed to an energy project by
preventing those who cannot afford to litigate a case against a big
corporation from recovering fees, expenses, and court costs when they
win.
It is time for this Congress to stand up for everyday Americans. I
urge my colleagues to stand for the rights of the individual and local
communities and oppose this misguided amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1945

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, this amendment is simple. Either you are with
American energy producers, or you are with overpaid, high-priced
Washington, D.C., attorneys and extremist special interest groups that
are holding up American energy production.
This amendment still allows the public to seek assistance in Federal
court and actually encourages that an up-or-down review of their legal
challenges occur in a more timely manner.
This amendment does not affect NEPA or environmental requirements
whatsoever. All American energy producers will still have to go through
the full environmental review and permitting process. As I mentioned
earlier with regard to previous amendments, that process takes an
average of 1,709 days to complete, and it allows public input from all
Americans.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, you are with American people--
farmers, ranchers, landowners, just regular, ordinary people--or you
are with the Big Business corporations that are seeking to rape and
pillage, on occasion, the land without any drawback of having to be
taken into the courthouse to deal with what they have done or with what
they are about to do.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, as I stated earlier, the amendment encourages
an all-of-the-above energy strategy and has specific language that
ensures the amendment applies to solar, natural gas, hydropower, clean
coal, geothermal, oil, biomass, and any other source of energy that is
produced on Federal lands. It actually embraces and supports those
folks out there in America; so I ask all of our folks to vote for the
Gosar-Bridenstine-Yoho amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Upton

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29
printed in House Report 114-359.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, as the designee of Evan Jenkins, I offer
amendment No. 29.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

December 2, 2015, on page H8956, the following appeared: Mr.
UPTON. Madam Chair, I offer Evan Jenkins amendment No. 29.

The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. UPTON. Madam
Chair, as the designee of Evan Jenkins, I offer amendment No. 29.

========================= END NOTE =========================

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 7001. STUDY TO IDENTIFY LEGAL AND REGULATORY BARRIERS
THAT DELAY, PROHIBIT, OR IMPEDE THE EXPORT OF
NATURAL ENERGY RESOURCES.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce
shall jointly transmit to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House
of Representatives, and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate, the results of a study to--
(1) identify legal and regulatory barriers that delay,
prohibit, or impede the export of natural energy resources,
including government and technical (physical or market)
barriers that hinder coal, natural gas, oil, and other energy
exports; and
(2) estimate the economic impacts of such barriers.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, this amendment requires the Department of
Energy and the Department of Commerce to conduct a study regarding the
legal and regulatory barriers that delay, prohibit, or impede the
export of natural energy resources.
This amendment instructs the Department of Energy and the Department
of Commerce to conduct this study to figure out which regulatory
barriers may be prohibiting, delaying, or hindering the export of
America's natural resources, like coal and natural gas, which come in
the form of permitting requirements, the threat of litigation,
regulatory red tape, market forces, and more.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment,
which would require the Department of Energy and the Department of
Commerce to conduct a study on the legal and regulatory provisions that
delay or prohibit the export of natural energy resources.
This is another example, Madam Chair, of an amendment in search of a
problem. The majority is, once again, making hyperbolic claims about
the Federal Government blocking energy exports, but this is simply not
true.
To cite the example of LNG exports, the Department of Energy
currently conducts a public interest review of all applications to
export LNG to a country without a free trade agreement with the United
States. The DOE has established a record of acting expeditiously, and
it has acted on all applications that have completed the NEPA process.
To date, the DOE has approved nine final authorizations on seven
projects. So, to imply there is a barrier in this case is simply not
true.
Further, any so-called barrier usually has a specific purpose: for
example, taking the time to ensure that public health is protected,
that safety and environmental concerns are adequately evaluated, that
the export of our natural resources is actually in the national
interest, and that consumers are not adversely impacted.
Finally, the amendment doesn't define ``barrier.'' So would other
agencies' regulations, promulgated under other statutory authority,
constitute a barrier? I am also not sure that the DOE and the
Department of Commerce even have the appropriate expertise to assess
these barriers.
For these reasons, Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment as its being
an unnecessary and vaguely defined study, and I urge my colleagues to
do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Rouzer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in House Report 114-359.
Mr. ROUZER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE __--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. ____. REPEAL OF RULE FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL WOOD HEATERS.

The final rule entitled ``Standards of Performance for New
Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters
and Forced-Air Furnaces'' published at 80 Fed. Reg. 13672
(March 16, 2015) shall have no force or effect and shall be
treated as if such rule had never been issued.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer) and

[[Page H8957]]

a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ROUZER. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the
North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act.
In early March of this year, the EPA published a final rule
establishing new regulations for wood heaters. Manufacturers and
consumers across the country are concerned about the negative impact of
these new regulations. In essence, these new requirements will increase
the cost to the point that wood heaters may very well be priced out of
the marketplace. The best case scenario is that consumers will be
paying more. Now, Madam Chair, neither is a good outcome.
According to reports, 10 percent of U.S. households still choose wood
heaters to keep their energy costs as low as possible. The number of
households that rely on wood as their primary heating source--get
this--rose by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2012.
It is important to note that several States have worked to protect
their residents from the consequences of these new regulations.
Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan, Virginia, and my home State of North
Carolina have all introduced or have passed legislation that prohibits
their respective environmental agencies from enforcing these
burdensome, unnecessary regulations. The reason is that they know the
costs of additional regulations are always passed down to the
consumers.
Simply put, the Federal Government has no business telling private
citizens how they should heat their homes.
Think about all of the folks in the Midwest and the Northeast who are
going to need and want a wood heater. After all, this is America. If
you want to have the opportunity to buy a wood heater, you ought to
have that opportunity. It shouldn't be priced out of the market.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
Madam Chair, the EPA has decided that 12 million wood-burning stoves
in 2.4 million households across America need to be regulated.
Back in the Eighth District of Missouri, about 30,000 households use
wood heat to warm their homes. Census data shows that households
heating with wood grew 34 percent between 2000 and 2010 and that low-
and middle-income households are much more likely to use wood as a
primary heating fuel. A given home in my district is five times more
likely to be heated with wood than is the national average.
Constituents I talk with daily are sick of this administration's war
on rural America. Rules like these disproportionately hurt rural areas,
which use much more wood heat than do urban or suburban environments:
57 percent of households that primarily use wood for heat are in rural
areas; 40 percent are in the suburbs; and only 3 percent are in urban
areas. Times are already tough enough back home. Folks should not be
punished for their self-reliance and their forethought to take
advantage of an abundant, eco-friendly fuel like wood.
I urge my colleagues to join me in eliminating this rule and keeping
affordable energy available to folks who need it the most.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, this amendment will delay the
implementation of the EPA's important standards for residential wood
heaters--finalized in February 2015--that will help improve air
quality, especially in communities where people burn wood for heat.
The EPA updated these standards because the Clean Air Act requires
the EPA to set new source performance standards for categories of
stationary sources of pollution that cause or significantly contribute
to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare, and the
law requires the EPA to review these standards every 8 years.
The EPA issued the first NSPS for residential wood heaters in 1988.
The Agency amended the standards once in 1998 to prohibit the sale of
wood heaters to consumers if the manufacturer had used an invalid test
to obtain EPA certification that the heater met NSPS requirements. The
1998 amendments did not change the emission limits in the original
rule. This means the standards for wood heaters have not been updated
in nearly 30 years.
The EPA's standards reflect significant outreach to the public and
interested stakeholders, including consultation with State, local, and
tribal governments and a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel.
The new standards will provide tremendous health benefits by cutting
harmful air pollution, including particle pollution, carbon monoxide,
and air toxics. Particle pollution causes a range of adverse health
effects, including asthma, heart attacks, and stroke.
The EPA estimates that the benefits of these standards will be up to
$7.6 billion annually. Put another way, for every dollar spent to
manufacture cleaner wood heaters, we will see up to $165 in health
benefits. So blocking this rule is fiscally irresponsible.
Some may claim that this rule will require people who use wood
heaters to replace the models they currently use, but this standard
applies only to the new manufacturing of wood heaters. It does not
require people to replace the heaters they have already purchased. Let
me repeat that. The EPA is not going into anyone's home and forcing one
to replace a heater one currently has. The final rule also has a
gradual 5-year phase-in to allow manufacturers time to adapt.
If this amendment were to become law and if the EPA is unable to
implement these standards, manufacturers will be able to continue
producing outdated wood heaters that pose risks to our air quality and
to our health.
The EPA's rule is a reasonable one that is long overdue. It has
important benefits, and it should be allowed to be implemented; so I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment that has
been put forward in order to address an onerous, unnecessary rule. My
question is: What are we going to try to regulate next--fireplaces? It
is next on the list, it seems to me.
I ask for the support of this amendment, and I thank my colleague
from Missouri for being here to offer his words of support for the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in House Report 114-359.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 7001. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Promoting Renewable Energy
with Shared Solar Act of 2015''.

SEC. 7002. PROVISION OF INTERCONNECTION SERVICE AND NET
BILLING SERVICE FOR COMMUNITY SOLAR FACILITIES.

(a) In General.--Section 111(d) of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(20) Community solar facilities.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Community solar facility.--The term `community solar
facility' means a solar photovoltaic system that--

``(I) allocates electricity to multiple individual electric
consumers of an electric utility;
``(II) has a nameplate rating of 2 megawatts or less; and

[[Page H8958]]

``(III) is--

``(aa) owned by the electric utility, jointly owned, or
third-party-owned;
``(bb) connected to a local distribution facility of the
electric utility; and
``(cc) located on or off the property of a consumer of the
electricity.
``(ii) Interconnection service.--The term `interconnection
service' means a service provided by an electric utility to
an electric consumer, in accordance with the standards
described in paragraph (15), through which a community solar
facility is connected to an applicable local distribution
facility.
``(iii) Net billing service.--The term `net billing
service' means a service provided by an electric utility to
an electric consumer through which electric energy generated
for that electric consumer from a community solar facility
may be used to offset electric energy provided by the
electric utility to the electric consumer during the
applicable billing period.
``(B) Requirement.--On receipt of a request of an electric
consumer served by the electric utility, each electric
utility shall make available to the electric consumer
interconnection service and net billing service for a
community solar facility.''.
(b) Compliance.--
(1) Time limitations.--Section 112(b) of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2622(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7)(A) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this paragraph, each State regulatory authority (with
respect to each electric utility for which the State has
ratemaking authority) and each nonregulated utility shall
commence consideration under section 111, or set a hearing
date for consideration, with respect to the standard
established by paragraph (20) of section 111(d).
``(B) Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this paragraph, each State regulatory authority (with respect
to each electric utility for which the State has ratemaking
authority), and each nonregulated electric utility shall
complete the consideration and make the determination under
section 111 with respect to the standard established by
paragraph (20) of section 111(d).''.
(2) Failure to comply.--
(A) In general.--Section 112(c) of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2622(c)) is
amended--
(i) by striking ``such paragraph (14)'' and all that
follows through ``paragraphs (16)'' and inserting ``such
paragraph (14). In the case of the standard established by
paragraph (15) of section 111(d), the reference contained in
this subsection to the date of enactment of this Act shall be
deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of that
paragraph (15). In the case of the standards established by
paragraphs (16)''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of
the standard established by paragraph (20) of section 111(d),
the reference contained in this subsection to the date of
enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a reference to
the date of enactment of that paragraph (20).''.
(B) Technical correction.--
(i) In general.--Section 1254(b) of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (Public Law 109-58; 119 Stat. 971) is amended by
striking paragraph (2).
(ii) Treatment.--The amendment made by paragraph (2) of
section 1254(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-58; 119 Stat. 971) (as in effect on the day before the
date of enactment of this Act) is void, and section 112(d) of
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C.
2622(d)) shall be in effect as if those amendments had not
been enacted.
(3) Prior state actions.--
(A) In general.--Section 112 of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2622) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Prior State Actions.--Subsections (b) and (c) shall
not apply to the standard established by paragraph (20) of
section 111(d) in the case of any electric utility in a State
if, before the date of enactment of this subsection--
``(1) the State has implemented for the electric utility
the standard (or a comparable standard);
``(2) the State regulatory authority for the State or the
relevant nonregulated electric utility has conducted a
proceeding to consider implementation of the standard (or a
comparable standard) for the electric utility; or
``(3) the State legislature has voted on the implementation
of the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric
utility.''.
(B) Cross-reference.--Section 124 of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2634) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``In the case of the
standard established by paragraph (20) of section 111(d), the
reference contained in this subsection to the date of
enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a reference to
the date of enactment of that paragraph (20).''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.

{time} 2000

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a great
opportunity to put solar power within reach of more families and small
businesses across America. It amends the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978 under which Congress directs States to consider
adopting certain regulatory policies.
My amendment directs States to consider solar projects up to 2
megawatts in size to be connected to their power distribution system
and that utilities allow the electricity produced by the community
solar facility to be credited directly to each of the consumers that
owns a share of the system, thus offsetting the cost of the electricity
that would normally be billed by the utility to the customer.
Currently, 14 States and the District of Columbia have shared
renewable policies in place. My amendment would encourage other States
to consider implementing new policies to promote community solar
projects.
Mr. Chair, 49 percent of households are currently unable to host a
photovoltaic system because they do not own their building. They are
renters or they do not have access to sufficient roof space, like high-
rise buildings or multifamily buildings, or they live in buildings with
too much shade or insufficient roof space to host such a photovoltaic
system.
It is also estimated that 48 percent of businesses are unable to host
a solar array. So by opening the market to these customers, shared
solar could represent as much as half of the distributed photovoltaic
market in 2020, adding an additional 5.5 to 11 gigawatts of solar
capacity across our country.
One good example is what is happening in central Florida. The Orlando
Utilities Commission has developed central Florida's first community
solar farm. The community solar farm gives Orlando residential and
small business customers access to sustainable, maintenance-free solar
energy without the hassles and costs associated with installing panels
on their home or businesses.
The 400-kilowatt array produces an average of 540,000 kilowatts
annually, which is enough energy to meet the power needs of about 40
homes. This has great promise. It has great potential for families and
small businesses that we all represent across the country.
I would urge an ``aye'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires States to consider
electric utilities to allow community solar projects of up to 2
megawatts to connect to the electric grid. We do know that community
solar is an exciting new technology that many communities and customers
are seriously considering.
I could say that I support the gentlewoman's community solar goals,
but there are some concerns with the amendment. Namely, as drafted, it
could violate some State electric service laws, while also potentially
being redundant of Federal standards currently imposed on States.
But because it is not a mandate and uses PURPA for States to
consider, which they are free to consider or reject, we can accept the
gentlewoman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
Energy and Commerce Committee for recognizing the great promise and
great potential for solar power for families and small businesses
across the country. I thank him for urging an ``aye'' vote.
I also urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32
printed in House Report 114-359.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

[[Page H8959]]

At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 7001. STUDY OF VOLATILITY OF CRUDE OIL.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to Congress the
results of a study to determine the maximum level of
volatility that is consistent with the safest practicable
shipment of crude oil by rail.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Department
of Energy to study and report to Congress within 1 year the maximum
level of volatility that is safe for transporting crude oil by rail.
This commonsense improvement to the bill is a first step in
addressing concerns of residents in districts like mine that, while it
is heavily industrialized, is also urbanized. The area that I represent
has five oil refineries and two destination facilities for oil by rail.
In 2008, oil traffic had increased over 5,000 percent along rail
routes leading from production zones in America to refineries and hubs
along both coasts. As traffic increases, so does the risk of
derailments to communities. Bakken crude oil is considered more
volatile than other types of crude and has important safety
implications for all of us.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has issued
safety alerts warning that crude oil being transported from this region
may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil. In fact, heavy
volatile crude oil from this region has been compared to jet fuel with
flammable vapors that can ignite after a derailment.
Several communities along rail lines have been forced to evacuate or
sustain significant property and environmental damage after derailment.
Unfortunately, there have been instances of severe injuries and some
deaths resulting from these accidents.
While the Obama administration has taken important steps to improve
tank car standards, more must be done to ensure that Americans living
near railways are safe. This amendment requires DOE to determine the
acceptable volatility for the safe transportation of oil by rail.
I would urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I
support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of
Energy to study the maximum level of volatility that is consistent with
the safest practical shipment of crude oil by rail. Every one of us
here wants the safe transportation of all of our natural resources.
Rail transport is getting larger and larger. We need to make sure that
it is safe.
I think it is a worthy amendment. I would urge all my colleagues to
support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeSaulnier-Lowey-
Garamendi amendment. At the outset, I want to thank my friend, the
distinguished chairman, for your wisdom in supporting this very
important amendment.
This year derailments in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia endangered lives, destroyed homes, and jeopardized waterways.
We must protect those who live near America's extensive rails,
including my constituents in Rockland County, New York, where every
week as many as 30 trains carry highly volatile Bakken crude oil past
homes, schools, and businesses.
In 2013, a freight train pulling 99 oil tanker cars collided with a
truck in West Nyack, averting disaster because the cars were empty.
This was not an isolated incident. Vehicles are frequently struck on
train tracks that carry crude oil. Just last month a freight train
collided with a car in Congers. We cannot afford to risk a ``next
time.''
We need scientific information to determine what volatility levels of
crude oil can be safely shipped, which would be provided if this
amendment passed, to protect those living near railways from the
dangers associated with a crude oil derailment.
I urge support of this amendment. I thank my colleague, Mr.
DeSaulnier, and our chair again. It looks like we are going to see some
important action on this very critical issue.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman, the staff, and Mrs.
Lowey.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Deutch

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33
printed in House Report 114-359.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE VII--MARINE HYDROKINETIC

SEC. 7001. DEFINITION OF MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE
ENERGY.

Section 632 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17211) is amended in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) by striking ``electrical''.

SEC. 7002. MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT.

Section 633 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17212) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 633. MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT.

``The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, shall carry out a program of research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application to
accelerate the introduction of marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy production into the United States energy
supply, giving priority to fostering accelerated research,
development, and commercialization of technology, including--
``(1) to assist technology development to improve the
components, processes, and systems used for power generation
from marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy resources;
``(2) to establish critical testing infrastructure
necessary--
``(A) to cost effectively and efficiently test and prove
the efficacy of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
devices; and
``(B) to accelerate the technological readiness and
commercialization of those devices;
``(3) to support efforts to increase the efficiency of
energy conversion, lower the cost, increase the use, improve
the reliability, and demonstrate the applicability of marine
and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies by
participating in demonstration projects;
``(4) to investigate variability issues and the efficient
and reliable integration of marine and hydrokinetic renewable
energy with the utility grid;
``(5) to identify and study critical short- and long-term
needs to create a sustainable marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy supply chain based in the United States;
``(6) to increase the reliability and survivability of
marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies;
``(7) to verify the performance, reliability,
maintainability, and cost of new marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy device designs and system components in an
operating environment;
``(8) to coordinate and avoid duplication of activities
across programs of the Department and other applicable
Federal agencies, including National Laboratories, and to
coordinate public-private collaboration in all programs under
this section;
``(9) to identify opportunities for joint research and
development programs and development of economies of scale
between--
``(A) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
technologies; and
``(B) other renewable energy and fossil energy programs,
offshore oil and gas production activities, and activities of
the Department of Defense; and
``(10) to support in-water technology development with
international partners using existing cooperative procedures
(including memoranda of understanding)--
``(A) to allow cooperative funding and other support of
value to be exchanged and leveraged; and

[[Page H8960]]

``(B) to encourage international research centers and
international companies to participate in the development of
water technology in the United States and to encourage United
States research centers and United States companies to
participate in water technology projects abroad.''.

SEC. 7003. NATIONAL MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION CENTERS.

Section 634(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17213(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Purposes.--A Center (in coordination with the
Department and National Laboratories) shall--
``(1) advance research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application of marine and hydrokinetic renewable
energy technologies;
``(2) support in-water testing and demonstration of marine
and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies, including
facilities capable of testing--
``(A) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy systems of
various technology readiness levels and scales;
``(B) a variety of technologies in multiple test berths at
a single location; and
``(C) arrays of technology devices; and
``(3) serve as information clearinghouses for the marine
and hydrokinetic renewable energy industry by collecting and
disseminating information on best practices in all areas
relating to developing and managing marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy resources and energy systems.''.

SEC. 7004. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 636 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17215) is amended by striking ``2008 through
2012'' and inserting ``2016 through 2019''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chair, H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security
Infrastructure Act, was crafted to support the modernization of our
Nation's energy infrastructure and the promotion of energy efficiency.
The Deutch-Takai amendment builds on this legislation by supporting
further development of one of our Nation's clean, renewable energy
sources, marine and hydrokinetic energy.
This amendment reauthorizes the Department of Energy's marine and
hydrokinetic research, development, and demonstration programs. This
amendment would support the innovative work done by institutions across
the country, including Florida Atlantic University in my district. I am
so proud that FAU has been a leader in hydrokinetic energy, harnessing
the clean power of our oceans to bring America one step closer to
energy independence.
FAU's research being done along our pristine coasts in Broward County
has already shown the tremendous potential of hydrokinetic energy to
produce reliable energy without endangering our beaches or oceans.
These national marine renewable energy research, development, and
demonstration centers will serve as information clearinghouses for the
marine and hydrokinetic energy industry by providing best practices
information on developing and managing these projects so that others
can learn from the work being done nationwide and grow this important
energy source.
Marine and hydrokinetic energy projects generate energy from waves,
currents, such as the gulf stream, and tides in the ocean and estuary
or tidal areas. They also can generate energy from free-flowing water
in rivers, lakes, or streams.
Marine and hydrokinetic energy projects generate power without the
use of a dam or the impoundment of water. Accordingly, the projects
have minimal, if any, impact on the surrounding environment.
The ocean waves, currents, and tides are a massive resource that have
the potential to produce continuous clean energy. In fact, harnessing
only 15 percent of the energy from U.S. coastal waves would produce as
much electricity as we currently produce from conventional
hydroelectric dams.
Moreover, it has been estimated that the amount of energy that could
be produced from waves, currents, and tides along the U.S. coast could
provide power to approximately 67 million homes. With more than 50
percent of our Nation's population currently living within 50 miles of
coastline, harnessing the energy of ocean waves, currents, and tides
and transmitting the energy to our cities and neighborhoods is cost
effective and practical.
The Department of Energy has estimated that hydrokinetic energy could
provide up to 25 percent of our Nation's power. The agency estimates
that California, Washington, and Oregon could have up to 20 percent of
their electricity requirements generated from waves, while Hawaii and
Alaska could have nearly all of their energy needs provided by marine
hydrokinetic energy.
Currently, this still young and developing form of energy technology
is in the process of being commercialized.
In Maine, hydrokinetic devices that harness energy from the tides
near Cobscook Bay have been connected to the electric grid and provide
enough power for 25 to 30 homes. In Hawaii, a hydrokinetic device has
become the first to be connected to the electric grid that harnesses
energy from waves.
These are the beginning steps toward commercializing this energy
form, and it will enable them to become more widespread and provide
power to the grids in our cities and communities.
Importantly, this amendment will improve the efficiency of
regulations impacting the licensing of marine and hydrokinetic
projects. The amendment would provide clarity on the regulations that
need to be satisfied for projects seeking a license and the agencies
involved in reviewing the licensing process so that innovative projects
don't get caught up in needless bureaucracy.
Marine and hydrokinetic will provide a continuous and a clean source
of energy. This amendment would support and promote continued
investment in research and development of hydrokinetic projects that
work to harness power from ocean waves, currents, and tides, as well as
our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. It would also improve the
regulatory barriers that slow the licensing process for these projects.
Marine and hydrokinetic energy is a source of energy we need to
continue to develop, improve, and connect to the grid to provide our
cities and communities with the electricity that they need.
I thank my colleague from Hawaii, Congressman Takai, for all of his
work in support of marine and hydrokinetic power and for his support of
this amendment.
I strongly urge support for the Deutch-Takai amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I would say that I am convinced that this is a
good amendment, and I will be in support of the amendment.
We have many Members, particularly Cathy McMorris Rodgers on our
committee, who are strong supporters of hydropower.

{time} 2015

This amendment promotes the research, development, and demonstration
of marine hydrokinetic energy technologies and improves the regulatory
process for such programs. As such, we support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Grayson

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34
printed in House Report 114-359.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE __--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. __. SMART METER PRIVACY RIGHTS.

(a) Electrical Corporation or Gas Corporations.--
(1) For purposes of this section, ``electrical or gas
consumption data'' means data about a customer's electrical
or natural gas usage that is made available as part of an
advanced metering infrastructure, and includes the name,
account number, or residence of the customer.
(2)(A) An electrical corporation or gas corporation shall
not share, disclose, or otherwise make accessible to any
third party a

[[Page H8961]]

customer's electrical or gas consumption data, except as
provided in subsection (a) (5) or upon the consent of the
customer.
(B) An electrical corporation or gas corporation shall not
sell a customer's electrical or gas consumption data or any
other personally identifiable information for any purpose.
(C) The electrical corporation or gas corporation or its
contractors shall not provide an incentive or discount to the
customer for accessing the customer's electrical or gas
consumption data without the prior consent of the customer.
(D) An electrical or gas corporation that utilizes an
advanced metering infrastructure that allows a customer to
access the customer's electrical and gas consumption data
shall ensure that the customer has an option to access that
data without being required to agree to the sharing of his or
her personally identifiable information, including electrical
or gas consumption data, with a third party.
(3) If an electrical corporation or gas corporation
contracts with a third party for a service that allows a
customer to monitor his or her electricity or gas usage, and
that third party uses the data for a secondary commercial
purpose, the contract between the electrical corporation or
gas corporation and the third party shall provide that the
third party prominently discloses that secondary commercial
purpose to the customer.
(4) An electrical corporation or gas corporation shall use
reasonable security procedures and practices to protect a
customer's unencrypted electrical or gas consumption data
from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or
disclosure.
(5)(A) Nothing in this section shall preclude an electrical
corporation or gas corporation from using customer aggregate
electrical or gas consumption data for analysis, reporting,
or program management if all information has been removed
regarding the individual identity of a customer.
(B) Nothing in this section shall preclude an electrical
corporation or gas corporation from disclosing a customer's
electrical or gas consumption data to a third party for
system, grid, or operational needs, or the implementation of
demand response, energy management, or energy efficiency
programs, provided that, for contracts entered into after
January 1, 2016, the utility has required by contract that
the third party implement and maintain reasonable security
procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the
information, to protect the personal information from
unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or
disclosure, and prohibits the use of the data for a secondary
commercial purpose not related to the primary purpose of the
contract without the customer's consent.
(C) Nothing in this section shall preclude an electrical
corporation or gas corporation from disclosing electrical or
gas consumption data as required or permitted under State or
Federal law or by an order of a State public utility
commission.
(6) If a customer chooses to disclose his or her electrical
or gas consumption data to a third party that is unaffiliated
with, and has no other business relationship with, the
electrical or gas corporation, the electrical or gas
corporation shall not be responsible for the security of that
data, or its use or misuse.
(b) Local Publicly Owned Electric Utilities.--
(1) For purposes of this section, ``electrical consumption
data'' means data about a customer's electrical usage that is
made available as part of an advanced metering
infrastructure, and includes the name, account number, or
residence of the customer.
(2)(A) A local publicly owned electric utility shall not
share, disclose, or otherwise make accessible to any third
party a customer's electrical consumption data, except as
provided in subsection (b) (5) or upon the consent of the
customer.
(B) A local publicly owned electric utility shall not sell
a customer's electrical consumption data or any other
personally identifiable information for any purpose.
(C) The local publicly owned electric utility or its
contractors shall not provide an incentive or discount to the
customer for accessing the customer's electrical consumption
data without the prior consent of the customer.
(D) A local publicly owned electric utility that utilizes
an advanced metering infrastructure that allows a customer to
access the customer's electrical consumption data shall
ensure that the customer has an option to access that data
without being required to agree to the sharing of his or her
personally identifiable information, including electrical
consumption data, with a third party.
(3) If a local publicly owned electric utility contracts
with a third party for a service that allows a customer to
monitor his or her electricity usage, and that third party
uses the data for a secondary commercial purpose, the
contract between the local publicly owned electric utility
and the third party shall provide that the third party
prominently discloses that secondary commercial purpose to
the customer.
(4) A local publicly owned electric utility shall use
reasonable security procedures and practices to protect a
customer's unencrypted electrical consumption data from
unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or
disclosure, and prohibits the use of the data for a secondary
commercial purpose not related to the primary purpose of the
contract without the customer's consent.
(5)(A) Nothing in this section shall preclude a local
publicly owned electric utility from using customer aggregate
electrical consumption data for analysis, reporting, or
program management if all information has been removed
regarding the individual identity of a customer.
(B) Nothing in this section shall preclude a local publicly
owned electric utility from disclosing a customer's
electrical consumption data to a third party for system,
grid, or operational needs, or the implementation of demand
response, energy management, or energy efficiency programs,
provided, for contracts entered into after January 1, 2016,
that the utility has required by contract that the third
party implement and maintain reasonable security procedures
and practices appropriate to the nature of the information,
to protect the personal information from unauthorized access,
destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
(C) Nothing in this section shall preclude a local publicly
owned electric utility from disclosing electrical consumption
data as required under State or Federal law.
(6) If a customer chooses to disclose his or her electrical
consumption data to a third party that is unaffiliated with,
and has no other business relationship with, the local
publicly owned electric utility, the utility shall not be
responsible for the security of that data, or its use or
misuse.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would establish minimum
privacy standards for smart meters on people's homes which are part of
the smart electric grid.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as of 2013,
nearly 52 million smart meters have already been installed in the
United States. This amendment would prohibit locally publicly owned
electric utilities, electrical corporations, or gas companies from
sharing, disclosing, or otherwise making accessible to any third party
a customer's electrical or gas consumption data.
It would also require these utilities to use reasonable security
procedures and practices to protect the customer's unencrypted
electrical and gas consumption data from unauthorized access,
destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. UPTON. And I will use my time to support the amendment.
This amendment does establish minimum privacy standards for smart
meters. I think it is a smart amendment, brilliant, and it needs to be
adopted.
I encourage my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 35 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35
printed in House Report 114-359.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE__OTHER MATTERS

SEC. ____. YOUTH ENERGY ENTERPRISE COMPETITION.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I just want to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, as we
have been debating important energy issues on the floor of the House,
to

[[Page H8962]]

offer my deepest sympathy to the families who have lost loved ones in
San Bernardino and hope that we will come together as a country and
find solutions to this terrible tragedy.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce
this amendment because it talks about the goodness of this Nation and
the wonderment of our youth. My amendment particularly is called the
Youth Energy Enterprise Competition. It asks the Secretaries of Energy
and Commerce to jointly establish an energy enterprise competition to
encourage youth to propose solutions to the energy challenges of the
United States and to promote youth interests and careers in science,
technology, engineering, and math, especially those fields that relate
to energy.
As a member of the United States Congress, I have had the privilege
of being on the Congressional Award Board that provides medals to young
people across the country for their public service, for their
volunteerism. I can see when they come to Washington the excitement and
the future of this Nation.
I truly believe that the future of this Nation is in energy
independence. Economic growth, national security, expanding
opportunities, and diversifying the energy sector workforce are
critical issues we must invest our time and talent in.
Across America, colleges, community colleges, high schools, and
middle schools are talking about science, technology, engineering, and
math. We are trying to introduce our children to the wonders of
science, technology, engineering, and math.
I do it by introducing my young people to NASA, NASA Johnson,
inviting them down to the space center and watching their eyes open in
amazement, or my annual Toys for the Kids effort, a big Christmas
party, and the most popular entity is the astronaut and the space
exhibit. So I know it is in our children.
My amendment is consistent with the administration's commitment to
promoting our national economic and homeland security interests and
empowering our youth. It asks the Secretaries of the Energy and
Commerce Departments to develop a challenge so that our young people
can compete with their ideas about the energy challenges of America.
It is a good approach to getting ideas to those of us who are
policymakers or maybe even to the world of the energy industry, from
those in Silicon Valley--and when I say that, dealing with high tech--
to the hard-nosed energy in our Midwest, and certainly down to Houston,
Texas, where we are dealing with LNG, natural gas, and oil and looking
for new ways to produce that product in a safe and environmentally
secure way.
I think this competition will bring forth new ideas, excited young
people, maybe starting from elementary or middle school, certainly
working with young people in high school and rewarding them for their
talent.
Mr. Chairman, this is a number of pictures from my district. One
exhibits a community garden but really is teaching young people about
soil and the idea of how you raise trees and dealing with the science
of farming. Then you have them also dealing with a drone, knowing the
technology of that and using it in a good way.
I have faith in America's youth, and I believe that this amendment
will help us bring to the forefront their talent and bright new ideas
to make this Nation the kind of strong and powerful nation that we know
it is but, more importantly, using the genius of our youth to face the
21st century energy challenges.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
It is listed in the Committee Report as Jackson Lee #35.
Let me express my appreciation to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member
Pallone for their leadership and commitment to American energy
infrastructure development, security, independence and economic growth.
I also wish to thank Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Slaughter, and
the members of the Rules Committee for making in order Jackson Lee
Amendment #35.
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment,
which provides:

YOUTH ENERGY ENTERPRISE COMPETITION

The Secretaries of Energy and Commerce shall jointly establish an
energy enterprise competition to encourage youth to propose solutions
to the energy challenges of the United States and to promote youth
interest in careers in science, technology, engineering, and math,
especially, as those fields relate to energy.
Mr. Chair, American energy independence, economic growth, national
security, and expanding opportunities and diversifying the energy
sector workforce are critical issues we must invest our time and talent
in.
But we can diversify the energy sector only if we encourage our youth
to be interested in energy related fields, which will position our
nation as the leader in the 21st century.
H.R. 8 seeks to continue to modernize energy infrastructure, help our
nation build a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster
America's energy security and diplomacy, promote energy efficiency and
government accountability.
As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the
nation, I am always looking to support energy policies that not only
make our nation more energy independent and create jobs but one that
also invests in the future of America: our youth.
According to the Department of Education, 16 percent of American high
school seniors are proficient in math and interested in a STEM career.
We need to improve on getting more youth interested in and excited
about careers in STEM.
My Amendment seeks to inspire youth and create opportunities for
youth to become excited about careers in the energy industry and to
pursue energy related educational degrees in the STEM industry.
The Administration and our nation as a whole must remain committed to
inspiring, educating and equipping the next generation of Googles,
Amazons, Twitters and Facebooks of the energy sector.
In today's world, one only need look at all the technology we need to
get by in our day to day dealings to understand the impact of STEM on
our lives.
Toddlers now have hand-held tablets to watch their cartoons such as
Pepper the Pig and Thomas the Train, owing to innovation in technology
and exposure to technology.
Similarly, in the science, technology, engineering and math fields as
it relates to energy, young people can be the solution to some of the
challenges faced by our nation, but only through preparedness.
Indeed, educating our youth in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) fields is central to U.S. economic competitiveness
and growth.
According to a PEW Research Report, countries like Hong Kong,
Singapore and Taiwan are leading the way in the globe in educating and
preparing their youth in STEM.
My Amendment seeks to propel U.S. youth so that they surpass their
peers in the global community.
Specifically, this Amendment directs the Secretaries of Energy and
Commerce to jointly establish an energy enterprise competition to
encourage youth to propose solutions to the energy challenges of the
United States and to promote youth interest in careers in science,
technology, engineering, and math, especially as those fields relate to
energy.
We need to prepare tomorrow's leaders for the competitive world of
energy independence, security and infrastructure building.
Part of our long-term strategy ought to be to stimulate and promote
innovation among young people to meet tomorrow's sure demand for
adequate supply of a qualified workforce in the STEM fields,
specifically as it relates to energy.
Mr. Chair, my Amendment will create the space and nurture the
platform to develop our young people's ability to think deeply about
the energy challenges of our nation and the role they can play in
coming up with solutions.
A youth energy enterprise competition can be the breeding ground for
future innovators, educators, researchers, and leaders in the energy
sector who can solve the most pressing challenges facing our nation and
our world, both today and tomorrow.
For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me and support
Jackson Lee Amendment #35.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. But there is no way I could oppose this amendment, let me
just say from the beginning.
This amendment directs the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce to
jointly establish an energy enterprise competition to promote youth
interest in careers in science, technology, engineering, and math,
especially as those fields related to energy.

[[Page H8963]]

I heard from one of my heroes today, Dean Kamen, probably the best
inventor of our time. He has, on his own, started just a wonderful
program employing hundreds of thousands of youth all around the
country, all around the world, a competition called FIRST Robotics, to
really get high school and middle school students invested in looking
at the science of so many different things in competitions that I
participated in.
My Governor, Rick Snyder, who was in town tonight, was honored as I
think the number one guy in the Nation earlier this year in Michigan.
We are going to have the national competition in Detroit, I want to
say, in 2 years. But I have been at the regional competition for this,
and where kids and mentors and companies are invested, this is the
future of science in so many different things.
This is a great amendment. I would urge all my colleagues to vote for
it. I know that, as I look at my friendship with Dean Kamen, he will
probably never talk to me again if I oppose the amendment. It is a
great amendment. It should have been done as part of our committee
mark.
I look forward to working with the Education committees and
appropriators to make sure that it is funded. It is a good thing. I
would urge all my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. I
yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank my colleague from
Texas for coming up with such a great program for young people.
Listening to her and her sense of optimism about the future, I think
that is what we need to encourage with our young people. I was so
pleased to see that the chairman of our committee also supports it.
I would like to lend my support and urge the amendment's adoption.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Upton
for his enthusiasm.
Dean Kamen is a hero of all of us. As I said, the greatest joy that I
have seen in my young people when I invite them out is going to NASA
Johnson out in Houston and, as well, when I bring the astronauts either
to their schools or, more importantly, when NASA goes out to the
schools. But when I have this big Christmas party, Santa Claus comes,
but I will tell you that the astronauts are enormously popular.
I want to thank Mr. Pallone, as well, for being committed to the
energy and the dreaming and the inspiration and talent of our young
people. That is what this amendment is about. I hope we can work
together to find the funding but, more importantly, to get our young
people engaged. I think they will have a lot of answers.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 36 Offered by Ms. Meng

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36
printed in House Report 114-359.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE__--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. ____. MODERNIZATION OF TERMS RELATING TO MINORITIES.

(a) Office of Minority Economic Impact.--Section 211(f)(1)
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C.
7141(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``a Negro, Puerto Rican,
American Indian, Eskimo, Oriental, or Aleut or is a Spanish
speaking individual of Spanish descent'' and inserting
``Asian American, African American, Hispanic, Puerto Rican,
Native American, or an Alaska Native''.
(b) Minority Business Enterprises.--Section 106(f)(2) of
the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act
of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6705(f)(2)) is amended by striking
``Negroes, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, and
Aleuts'' and inserting ``Asian American, African American,
Hispanic, Native American, or Alaska Natives''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Meng) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, this bipartisan amendment is simple. It seeks to
strike the term ``Oriental'' from Federal law in the last two remaining
instances it is used to refer to a person within the Federal law.
I thank my colleague and my friend, Chairman Royce, for cosponsoring
this amendment with me.
Mr. Chair, in the same way, I would not want either of my children to
be referred to as ``Oriental'' by their teacher at school, I hope we
can all agree that the term ``Oriental'' no longer deserves a place in
Federal law.
Toward that end, this amendment strikes the offensive term from 42
U.S.C. 7141 and 42 U.S.C. 6705, two sections of Federal law written in
the 1970s that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
Congress once found it appropriate to pass laws such as the Chinese
Exclusion Act and the Geary Act, but we also found it appropriate to
repeal them. Times change. What is acceptable changes, and this
Congress more often than not yields to that change.
Mr. Chair, I call on my colleagues to join me in striking the legal
use of outdated terms that many in the community would find offensive.
I thank the Committee on Rules for making this amendment in order. I
thank the chairman for allowing me time to speak on what is an
important issue to my district, and I thank, again, Mr. Royce for his
support and his cosponsorship of this amendment.
I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but again, I
strongly support this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I am delighted that Ms. Meng brought this to
our attention. Mr. Royce is a very dear friend. I know we all share the
same thoughts. I also want to just thank Pete Sessions, chairman of the
Committee on Rules, for making this amendment in order. I would urge
all my colleagues to support the amendment and appreciate it being
offered tonight.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his kind words.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of the
amendment to H.R. 8 introduced by my colleague, the Gentlewoman from
New York, Representative Meng.
Racism and discrimination has no place in America today. We are a
nation of immigrants that is proud of its diversity.
And when we get the chance, we should correct the mistakes of the
past. That is what this amendment is about. The Federal Code still
contains language on ethnicity that is antiquated and inappropriate.
Our society has progressed a great deal in the last 100 years. It is
time for us to do the same to our Federal Code.
This amendment eliminates outdated, disrespectful terms from federal
law and replaces them with terms, such as ``Asian American,'' ``Alaska
Natives,'' and ``Hispanic,'' that are more appropriate for our times
and in keeping with our values.
Deleting inappropriate terms from usage in the U.S. Code is a simple
means of demonstrating respect for our nation's diversity, and it will
have no effect on the underlying federal laws.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Pallone

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37
printed in House Report 114-359.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE VII--EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 7001. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall not take effect until the Energy Information
Administration has analyzed and published a report on the
carbon impacts of the provisions of this Act.

[[Page H8964]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, despite original efforts to pass a
bipartisan bill to address some of our energy infrastructure needs,
H.R. 8 has become an attempt by the Republican Party to create
backward-facing legislation that replaces many good provisions with
legislation that would continue to reward polluters and contribute to
our climate change issue.

{time} 2030

In yesterday's debate on the CRAs, we heard time and again that
climate change is not a priority for Republicans because they are more
concerned with the economy and jobs.
Unlike the rhetoric that they would have us believe, a good economy
and sound environmental policies are not mutually exclusive. We have
actually experienced a boost in the economy under the Clean Air Act.
However, climate change is having a real effect on our communities,
from more frequent extreme weather events, like Hurricane Sandy, to the
extreme drought in California, to the floods experienced in Florida.
The emotional and economic tolls of these events have been great and
will continue to increase the longer this Congress ignores these
pressing issues.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to ignore climate change and
disseminate misinformation. We are putting ourselves on a track towards
irreparable damage.
Climate change and energy are inexorably linked. Each are a facet of
the other. Energy is the source of 84 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions, and any energy bill has a large impact on the direction of
energy investment.
To that end, it is critical that legislation that is focused on
developing U.S. energy policy move the country on the right path by
helping to reduce carbon pollution, not to increase it. It is
imperative that U.S. energy policy promote clean forms of energy and
help make all energy use more efficient.
A necessary step to understanding its potential impact on emissions
is to have the energy bill scored before it is enacted, and my
amendment would do just that. The energy bill would be submitted to the
Energy Information Administration, who would determine the overall
short- and long-term impacts of the bill on U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions: the Climate Pollution Score. The bill should not be enacted
until such an analysis is complete.
Mr. Chairman, we know that the higher levels of greenhouse gases will
continue to perturb our climate and impact public health. The
responsible choice is to ensure that we are not contributing to the
problem.
As Members of this Congress, it is our responsibility to protect the
interests of Americans, which includes protecting Americans from the
devastating effects of climate change while we still can. This
amendment will allow us to do just that by giving us necessary
information to analyze the effects of this legislation.
So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to protect Americans by
voting for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. UPTON. This amendment, as properly stated, would provide that the
bill should not take effect until the Energy Information Administration
has done a study and prepared a report on the carbon impacts of the
provision.
So, in essence, it would delay implementation of the bill
indefinitely. And we believe that that would be a diversion, as the
focus of this bill is to modernize our energy infrastructure and ensure
access to affordable, reliable energy in a strong economy as fast as we
can.
An economy based on reliable, affordable energy provides the means
for the prosperity for future generations and the economic strength to
respond and adapt to future challenges. It is particularly true when it
comes to risks of climate change, whether natural or man-influenced.
The bill promotes technological innovation; the development of
resilient, efficient energy infrastructure; and a strong economy to
withstand climate events, regardless of the causes. Delaying the
measures in this bill denies the public a direct path to a stronger,
more resilient energy infrastructure and greater economic growth.
Because of those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to vote against
my friend's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The score that I am asking for that would be done by the Energy
Information Administration would not indefinitely delay the bill. They
have the ability to do the scoring.
This is an independent agency within the Energy Department that was
created on a bipartisan basis. It is nonpartisan. It collects energy
data for the United States. And once the score was attributed, the bill
could move forward.
But the point is we need to know what the impact is going to be on
the environment, on air pollution, and on climate change.
I think that my concern, of course, is that this legislation was
scored negatively, and that is the reason why I think we need to have a
score. It is certainly not going to delay the bill indefinitely, as was
suggested by the chairman.
I urge a vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Norcross

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38
printed in House Report 114-359.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of title III, add the following new section:

SEC. 3007. REPORT ON SMART METER SECURITY CONCERNS.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to Congress a
report on the weaknesses in currently available smart meters'
security architecture and features, including an absence of
event logging, as described in the Government Accountability
Office testimony entitled ``Critical Infrastructure
Protection: Cybersecurity of the Nation's Electricity Grid
Requires Continued Attention'' on October 21, 2015.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First of all, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member bringing
this bill to us.
As we know and the title indicates, this is about energy security.
Well, my amendment is very simple and direct. We are urging and
specifically directing that the Secretary of Energy study the potential
cybersecurity weakness in smart meters and to report back on this in 1
year.
So the first question is: What is a smart meter? For the consumer, it
is that little box outside your air conditioner or by the panel. It
provides savings to the consumer, and to the utility provider, it is
about providing that secure, reliable electricity at a competitive
price.
But these meters were designed back before the world as we know it
today. Now we have to think of things very differently and think of
them before they happen.
So what are the risks? A GAO official revealed the vulnerability in
these

[[Page H8965]]

smart meters. There are approximately 40 million to 50 million of these
meters that are already installed in hospitals, churches, homes, and in
industry that could potentially be a target for hackers. That is why we
should be concerned.
The CIA report spoke about that malicious activity against IT systems
and power systems overseas. Our society has become so reliant on the
very electricity that we are standing under today that those who would
do damage to our country might have a vulnerability here. And we need
to act before they do. This is why I bring this amendment forward.
I started out as an electrician many years ago, so I understand the
power side of it. I sit on the Emerging Threats Subcommittee. I hear
those threats each and every day. We have to make sure that we keep our
homes, our businesses, and, most importantly, our military safe.
We are talking about damaged equipment and potentially massive
blackouts, not just like the ones we had in New York almost a decade
ago but potentially taking down our entire grid.
Smart meters are now part of the fabric of what we do day in and day
out. This amendment very carefully identifies those vulnerabilities. I
would urge members to support this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I support the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. UPTON. This is the second smart amendment that is part of this.
Both are good. We adopted the Grayson amendment a little while ago. It
was a good amendment.
This amendment directs the Secretary of Energy to study weaknesses in
the security architecture of certain smart meters currently available
and promulgate regulations to mitigate those weaknesses.
We want every home to be safe, absolutely. We need to take all those
steps, whether it be people's individual billing, whatever it might be.
It is a good amendment. As I told Mr. Grayson, it is brilliant, smart.
I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NORCROSS. I certainly appreciate the support. This is just one of
many items that we have to look forward to before those who want to do
us harm. So I appreciate it, and I urge the passing of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Allen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8) to
modernize energy infrastructure, build a 21st century energy and
manufacturing workforce, bolster America's energy security and
diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency and government accountability,
and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________