[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5022-H5032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY AND FOREST PROTECTION ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include any extraneous material on the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 392 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1873.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1504


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1873) to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
to enhance the reliability of the electricity grid and

[[Page H5023]]

reduce the threat of wildfires to and from electric transmission and 
distribution facilities on Federal lands by facilitating vegetation 
management on such lands, with Mr. Womack in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Today marks the Committee on Natural Resources' Subcommittee on 
Water, Power and Oceans' first step in advancing an infrastructure 
agenda that aims to improve our Nation's infrastructure and expedite 
the development of new infrastructure.
  As vice chairman of the subcommittee, chaired by the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), I have already seen a number of bills advance 
through the committee that, like the bill in front of us today, employ 
simple, pragmatic solutions to improve our Nation's infrastructure and 
advance an all-of-the-above energy and water strategy.
  The Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, a bipartisan 
bill offered by my colleagues, Mr. LaMalfa and Mr. Schrader, is about 
avoiding electricity blackouts, preventing forest fires, and promoting 
healthy habitat for wildlife on Federal lands.
  This bill represents a simple, pragmatic solution to an issue that is 
born out of a lack of communication and consistency within a Federal 
agency.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Conaway for agreeing to help expedite 
consideration of this bill today.
  I commend my colleagues, Mr. LaMalfa from California and Mr. Schrader 
from Oregon, for bringing up this bipartisan, commonsense piece of 
legislation.
  I urge my House colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2017.
     Hon. Rob Bishop,
     Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 1873, the 
     Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act. It is my 
     understanding that, on April 27, 2017, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered the bill reported with amendments.
       This legislation contains provisions within the Committee 
     on Agriculture's Rule X jurisdiction. As a result of your 
     having consulted with the Committee and in order to expedite 
     this bill for floor consideration, the Committee on 
     Agriculture will forego action on the bill. This is being 
     done on the basis of our mutual understanding that doing so 
     will in no way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Agriculture with respect to the appointment of 
     conferees, or to any future jurisdictional claim over the 
     subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation.
       I would appreciate your response to this letter confirming 
     this understanding, and would request that you include a copy 
     of this letter and your response in the Committee Report and 
     in the Congressional Record during the floor consideration of 
     this bill. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                               K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Natural Resources,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2017.
     Hon. K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On April 27, 2017, the Committee on 
     Natural Resources ordered reported as amended H.R. 1873, the 
     Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, by a 
     bipartisan roll call vote of 24 to 14. The bill was referred 
     primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, with an 
     additional referral to the Committee on Agriculture.
       I ask that you allow the Committee on Agriculture to be 
     discharged from further consideration of the bill so that it 
     may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This discharge in no 
     way affects your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the 
     bill, and it will not serve as precedent for future 
     referrals. In addition, should a conference on the bill be 
     necessary, I would support your request to have the Committee 
     on Agriculture represented on the conference committee. 
     Finally, I would be pleased to include this letter and any 
     response in the bill report filed by the Committee on Natural 
     Resources to memorialize our understanding.
       Thank you for your consideration of my request and for the 
     extraordinary cooperation shown by you and your staff over 
     matters of shared jurisdiction. I look forward to further 
     opportunities to work with you this Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Rob Bishop,
                         Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Wildfires are a huge problem in our country. They are becoming more 
frequent and more intense, and they pose a growing threat to public 
safety and local economies.
  But, instead of taking steps to reduce wildfire threats, this bill 
tries to scare us into weakening environmental safeguards and giving 
away public land management to States and localities.
  I agree with the bill's sponsor that overgrown vegetation and falling 
trees can spark forest fires. However, government data shows that this 
accounts for less than one-third of 1 percent of fires in the past 5 
years.
  Why are we focusing on this minor problem when it is clear that real 
wildfire solutions require treating these fires like the disasters that 
they are under the law, and allowing the Forest Service to use its base 
budget for preventing wildfires, not just fighting them?
  Given what we have seen from Republicans in the Natural Resources 
Committee, the answer is simple: to chip away at the National 
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA; shut expert Federal agencies and 
concerned citizens out of the land management process; and allow Big 
Business to profit at the expense of taxpayers and our public lands.
  The bill lets State and local electricity reliability standards trump 
public land management rules. There is not even any requirement that 
the standards are based on sound science or principles of risk 
assessment.
  If a county says it needs to clear-cut a half mile into a national 
forest to protect power lines, this bill would allow it, and the Forest 
Service could only watch. Further, there is no prohibition on selling 
timber harvested during these operations.
  The bill also mandates the Forest Service and BLM use its NEPA 
categorical exclusion authority, even when vegetation management 
projects could cause environmental damage. This means that people who 
value public lands would be completely shut out from the management 
process. So much for transparency and public input.
  Adding insult to injury, the bill waives liability for companies that 
start forest fires or cause other damage. This is nonsense and shifts 
an incredible burden and risk onto American taxpayers.
  The bill also fails to deal with the root causes of our fire crisis, 
including the fact that the Forest Service cannot afford mitigation 
work to prevent wildfires because it spends half of its budget fighting 
them.
  I support legislation making wildfire disasters eligible for disaster 
assistance under the Stafford Act, and I know many of my colleagues, 
both Republicans and Democrats, do as well. I am disappointed that we 
are not passing a bill to do that today, and, instead, are here just 
pretending to do something about a very serious problem.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and 
Forest Protection Act.
  In California, we know all too well the disastrous effects of 
wildfires. Reducing the threat of wildfires requires numerous proactive 
efforts, including the timely removal of fire hazards.
  My colleague, Mr. LaMalfa, has identified a solution to help improve 
fire hazard removal on Federal lands and prevent electrical blackouts.
  There are more than 18,000 miles of power lines on Forest Service and 
Bureau of Land Management land, and these transmission lines, running 
along electricity rights-of-way, are critical to the power distribution 
in the West.
  The costs of operating and maintaining these transmission rights-of-
way are borne by utility companies, but approval for companies to 
remove the fire

[[Page H5024]]

hazards comes from the Forest Service. Currently, it takes the Forest 
Service months to grant approval to remove a dead tree.
  H.R. 1873 addresses this issue by allowing utility companies to 
remove fire risks in a timely manner and ensuring we are being 
responsible stewards of our Federal lands.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DENHAM. Additionally, the bill allows utility companies to engage 
in responsible vegetation management along these rights-of-way, 
including language that I have added, which encourages the management 
practices for our pollinators, enhancing the habitat and forage for 
these pollinators, such as commercial and native bees that are so 
important to our trees and our community.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat: We are talking about 
caution and what is causing fires; and 0.03 percent of fires caused by 
transmission lines is the data that is available to us. I know facts 
sometimes don't matter, but they should matter in something as 
important as this; and 0.03 percent is the cause by transmission lines 
of fires in the forest on public lands.
  We are generalizing the huge wildfires that we have seen to make a 
case for this bill when the case is about transmission lines, rights-
of-away; and it is 0.03 percent as the root cause of those fires over 5 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend my colleagues for this 
commonsense legislation. As a result of drought and the bark beetle, 
there are an estimated over 107 million dead trees in over 33 million 
acres of forests in California, and it is also throughout the West. 
Part of this is due to climate change, which is one of the most vexing 
challenges of our time.

  This unprecedented tree mortality has created serious fire risk of 
wildfires throughout the West. Today, in California, in the Central 
Valley, we have record temperatures of 109 degrees and 112 degrees. 
Obviously, that adds to the concern.
  One thing that can be done, though, to prevent wildfires is to manage 
and control the amount of vegetation, particularly in areas where we 
have increased fire risk. We just, bottom line, have to manage our 
forests a lot better than we are. We are putting way too much of our 
budget for managing our forests to putting out fires, and that must 
change.
  But an example of a location with higher fire risk is a utility 
corridor with exposed electrical lines that we have throughout the West 
in forested areas.
  In 2015, the Butte fire in northern California, which was the seventh 
most destructive in California's history, was sparked by a tree that 
came into contact with a power line. This is easily prevented by 
removing those trees that could damage lines, reducing fire risk and 
the cost of repairs to the utility ratepayers, plus the people in the 
surrounding area, which these fires are devastating, and sometimes 
lives are lost as well as property.

                              {time}  1515

  H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, if 
enacted, would create a process to expedite routine maintenance of 
vegetation along electric utilities in and near utility corridors and 
would help prevent future tragedies like the 2015 Butte fire in 
northern California that was devastating, once again.
  The bottom line is that we must do more, and we can. I concur that we 
should utilize the Stafford Act for forest fires, and that would free 
up more money to manage the forests. But that is a separate piece of 
legislation that, hopefully, we will get a chance to act on.
  This is a separate piece, and I urge support of this commonsense 
legislation, for my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1873, 
legislation sponsored by my colleagues from the Western Caucus, which 
improves the reliability of our electrical grid while, at the same 
time, protecting our Federal lands and forests from the ravages of 
wildfires.
  This bipartisan legislation is common sense, plain and simple. This 
bill allows electric co-ops to prune or remove a tree that would fall 
on a power line in an electricity corridor if left unmanaged.
  Maintaining healthy and well-managed rights-of-way is important for 
many reasons, not the least of which are the safety of our communities 
and reliable electricity delivery.
  Now, if you knew that a tree was going to fall on a power line and 
potentially cause a massive blackout or spark a fire, you would 
probably want to cut it back or get rid of it, right? Of course you 
would. It is common sense.
  Unfortunately, inconsistent and unpredictable viewpoints between 
Federal land managers at the Departments of Interior and Agriculture 
have prevented co-ops from ensuring safety along the corridors, putting 
many at risk.
  Timely decisionmaking is crucial for these co-ops to protect the 
land, but for far too long, bureaucratic red tape has delayed the 
removal of hazardous trees for weeks and, in some cases, months. Too 
many times, co-ops have notified the proper Department of a dangerous 
situation only to have the request to remove a hazardous tree either 
denied or bogged down by unnecessary and duplicative reviews. Not only 
that, but when the very tree they reported inevitably falls on a power 
line and sparks a fire, the co-op is left holding the bill for the 
damages.
  Mr. Chairman, this is absurd, and I am pleased that this legislation 
shifts liability for a fire started under those circumstances back to 
the party responsible for inaction.
  Rolling the dice on forest health is not just unwise, it is flat out 
irresponsible. I thank the gentlemen from California and Oregon for 
sponsoring this much-needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote in support of this bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1873, 
the bipartisan Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act.
  I want to thank my colleague from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for 
working with me on this important legislation that will bring much-
needed consistency and accountability throughout the Federal land 
management agencies.
  This bill is just common sense. Putting it quite simply, we are just 
helping our utilities better enhance safety and reliability of the grid 
and protecting against wildfires and blackouts.
  Contrary to what some folks have asserted, this is actually a 
bipartisan bill supported by quite a few Democrats. This bill is 
especially vital for most of those in the West, where much of our land 
is federally owned.
  Many of your utilities' and co-ops' service territory can be more 
than 50 percent federally managed. We have witnessed extreme variations 
and approaches not only between the Forest Service and the BLM, but 
within the management agency districts themselves.
  Jim Pena, out in Oregon: ``There is little consistency from agency to 
agency, district to district, or even within the same offices.'' This 
is the Forest Service talking.
  We read and listened to the specter of big companies coming in and 
clear-cutting our Federal lands. I respectfully suggest that that is 
why we need these vegetative management plans. They are short, concise, 
deal with only the utility's right-of-way and the land adjacent to it 
that could cause problems.
  I wonder sometimes what the heck folks are talking about. We have 
heard complaints about absolving companies from liability. That is not 
true. What we are saying is, if the Secretary fails to allow the 
utility to manage the vegetation on Federal lands or adjacent right-of-
way in a way that is consistent with their approved vegetative

[[Page H5025]]

management plan that they have worked out with them or if the hazard 
tree or tree is in imminent danger of contacting an electricity line, 
the utility will not be held liable for wildfire damage or loss. It 
does not absolve a utility from liability if they are negligent or act 
in a way that is inconsistent with their vegetative management plan.
  I give you a great example our colleague from Arizona talked about. 
In Oregon, a rural co-op requested trimming some dangerous trees along 
the rights-of-way by the Forest Service. The Forest Service denied the 
request. A tree fell on the power line, sparked a fire. The utility was 
held responsible for paying for that fire when they had actually 
brought the issue to them in the first place. That is ridiculous.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1873.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, I also thank Mr. Webster for managing this 
legislation for us here on the floor today. I appreciate it.

  I rise today as a sponsor in strong support, of course, of H.R. 1873. 
It is indeed a commonsense vegetation management bill that reduces 
forest fire danger possibilities and electricity blackouts, while 
cutting through the bureaucratic red tape in the process.
  I also want to thank my colleague Mr. Schrader from Oregon for his 
strong support in making this a true bipartisan effort for something 
that really should have no partisan roots at all.
  As we have heard several of my colleagues speak earlier in testimony 
on the floor here today, there are gross inconsistencies and 
impediments in the way the Forest Service and BLM manage transmission 
lines, particularly in the West, where many of these lines run through 
difficult terrain and dense forest.
  One electric utility in my district, the City of Redding Electric 
Utility, uses helicopters to engage in vegetation management along the 
rights-of-way on Federal lands. Such remote and forested areas make it 
especially difficult to effectively manage an area so large and dense.
  Rapid agency response is needed to help electric utility requests to 
conduct routine and emergency vegetation maintenance along Federal 
rights-of-way. It is absolutely essential to avoid wildfires and 
blackouts.
  Another benefit this bill brings to utility companies is much-needed 
safeguards in instances where the Secretary fails to allow them to trim 
or remove a hazardous tree. There was an unfortunate incident in La 
Pine, Oregon, in which a rural electric utility company was unjustly 
billed for a $300,000 fire suppression bill when its request to remove 
a tree in imminent danger of falling on a transmission line was denied 
by the Forest Service.
  This bill would provide the electric utility companies the confidence 
and means to manage and maintain their own transmission lines from 
overgrown and unmanaged trees along rights-of-way, something the 
Federal Government should already be doing in the first place.
  You see from the example here that electricity frequently is 
generated in rural parts of our country, and long, long transmission 
lines are needed to get to the urban parts of the country. So we are 
all in this: blackouts for the urban areas and, indeed, black skies in 
our rural areas where the forests are from unneeded wildfires.
  The Forest Service's own document shows that, between 2012 and 2013, 
approximately 350 forest fires were caused by this interface of damaged 
trees, dying trees, falling trees falling into the different types of 
lines you would find in rural areas in order to move the power.
  These changes to status quo are long overdue. This bill is an answer 
to many of the problems electricity companies are having with the 
management of electricity rights-of-way on Federal lands. Too many 
dying and dead trees have fallen unnecessarily on power lines, sparking 
devastating forest fires that could have been prevented had they had 
that ability to remove the tree in question.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. LaMALFA. By providing the utilities with the tools they need to 
ensure the reliability and the longevity of our national forests, we 
can bolster investment in energy infrastructure and enhance the lives 
of all Americans and do much better to preserve the habitat of these 
areas that we treasure.
  I urge swift passage of the bill today and favor in the Senate when 
it gets over there. Indeed, I thank my colleagues for helping this 
process along today.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  An example that supporters of this legislation use is from Oregon. It 
is from 1984. In the 33 years since then, I am aware of no example of a 
Federal agency refusing to allow a company to do vegetation management 
work and then holding the company liable for the damages.
  In fact, as the committee report for this bill states, the issue of 
land managers allowing access to rights-of-way was largely resolved by 
language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, stating:

       Federal agencies responsible for approving access to 
     electric transmission and distribution facilities located on 
     lands within the United States shall, in accordance with 
     applicable law, expedite any Federal agency approvals that 
     are necessary to allow owners and operators of such 
     facilities to comply with any reliability standard approved 
     by the Commission under section 215 of the Federal Power Act 
     that pertains to vegetation management, service restorations, 
     or any situation that imminently endangers the reliability or 
     safety of the facilities.

  If the utility companies feel that BLM and the Forest Service are not 
complying with the law, they should seek resolution in the court. 
Instead, they are coming after a backdoor opportunity to affect our 
public lands.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, it really is amazing that the bureaucratic 
tangle that has been caused by our so-called environmental laws has now 
reached the point that even dead trees on public lands that threaten to 
fall on power lines and cause major forest fires cannot be removed 
without permission from Federal bureaucrats. And then to add insult to 
insanity, when the bureaucracy denies or delays permission and a fire 
results, the cost of the fire is paid by the utility's customers 
through higher household electricity bills.
  Mr. LaMalfa mentioned a situation in La Pine, Oregon, where the 
Midstate Electric Cooperative begged the Forest Service for permission 
to trim trees that were threatening their power lines, and they were 
refused. Well, sure enough, when one of those trees fell on a power 
line and started a fire, the utility's customers were forced to pay the 
firefighting costs that resulted, a third of a million dollars.

  Carbon Power & Light warned the Forest Service of trees threatening 
their lines. The Forest Service required them first to conduct $1.6 
million of environmental studies paid by the utility's customers. If 
there had been a fire in the meantime, they would have had to pay those 
costs as well.
  Mr. LaMalfa's bill basically does two things:
  First, it exempts such projects from time-consuming and costly 
environmental reviews. After all, there is nothing more devastating to 
the forest environment than a forest fire. Our environmental laws are 
now causing these fires.
  Second, when a Federal agency delays or denies permission for a 
utility to remove or trim hazard trees and they end up causing a fire, 
the liability is placed where it belongs: on the agency and its 
bureaucrats, not on the utility and its customers; and it gives 
utilities permission to remove imminent threats to power lines before 
they can cause a fire.
  Mr. Chair, you may have noticed, common sense is not exactly common 
to government. Let's change that today by adopting this bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  At a hearing on similar legislation in the Natural Resources 
Committee last Congress, both the Forest Service and BLM testified in 
opposition and explained how they work with utility companies to 
address vegetation management issues.

[[Page H5026]]

  In addition to entering into voluntary vegetation management plans, 
the Forest Service testified that the agency's 2013 vegetation 
management guide specifies for field staffs the procedures and 
practices that should be included in operation and maintenance plans 
for power lines. This guide states that, where vegetation conditions 
inside or outside the authorized right-of-way pose an imminent threat 
to power line facilities, utility companies may remove those threats 
immediately, without prior approval from the Forest Service.
  For its part, BLM testified that, under the terms and conditions 
typically included in a right-of-way grant, a utility company may 
conduct minor trimming, pruning, and weed management to maintain the 
right-of-way of a facility after simply notifying BLM. The utility 
company can often obtain BLM approval for removal of hazardous trees 
through a streamlined process. For an emergency situation causing an 
imminent hazard, no BLM preapproval would be necessary.

                              {time}  1530

  I understand that some of the companies believe they should be able 
to do whatever they want whenever they want, but the land does not 
belong to them. It belongs to the American people, and Federal agencies 
have a responsibility to all Americans to ensure that those lands are 
not abused.
  Again, facts do matter, and 0.03 percent of fires in public lands 
were caused by trees falling on transmission lines in the last 5 
years--0.03 percent. So we continue to exaggerate the common sense 
behind the facts that I just laid out.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of H.R. 1873, the 
Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act, and I thank Mr. 
LaMalfa for his leadership on this issue.
  I would also like to commend the nonpartisan support for this bill, 
and associate my remarks with the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) 
and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  This bill is a commonsense piece of legislation that will reduce the 
risk of wildfires and improve the safety and reliability of our 
electrical grid.
  How will this bill accomplish these objectives?
  It is really quite simple. When we remove overgrown vegetation near 
our electric grid on Federal lands, we remove the fuel component of 
wildfires. By reducing the risk of wildfire, we reduce the risk of an 
interruption of our electrical grid.
  Mr. Chairman, this is so much just plain common sense that it baffles 
me that we are having to debate it on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, but I think it is an example of how misguided some of 
our land management agencies have become, and the need for broader 
reforms.
  This bill would streamline the Federal review process for removal of 
trees and vegetation that pose a risk to our power grid and promotes 
consistency among Federal agencies tasked with the decisions on 
removal.
  If we want to move toward better protection of our forests on Federal 
lands and the electrical grid that moves through these locations, it is 
obvious that we should pass H.R. 1873.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My colleague from California (Mr. Costa) brought up one of the real 
causes of wildfire, and that was climate change, the lack of 
mitigation, and the situation within the Forest Service budget in which 
half of the revenue dedicated to that department is used to suppress 
wildfires.
  This administration has denied the existence of climate change, 
scrubbed it from its vocabulary, from its science, from its study. If 
we are going to look at the causes of wildfires, if we are going to 
look at strategies and how we protect the urban and forest interface, 
if we are going to look at really addressing the subject, then the very 
salient point that Mr. Costa brought up regarding climate change has to 
be part and parcel of the discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Natural Resources 
Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, management of the forests and 
forest fires is an important and significant topic, but it is not the 
issue that we are having here today. Climate change is an important 
significant topic, but it is not the issue that we are talking about 
today.
  We are talking about how you transfer power from point A, where it is 
produced, to point B, where people live, and make sure that you can 
continue to have that power flowing there because it impacts the 
quality of life. This is about how we improve our lives. That is the 
key issue.
  The examples have been given out here before of examples of where 
that has been interrupted simply because we failed to maintain 
transmission lines. A good example is down in New Mexico, where, once 
again, an ash tree--pun intended--actually fell on a forest, on the 
line, creating a 150,000-acre fire; and then the company that actually 
owned the line and wanted to maintain it but was not allowed to by the 
Forest Service was given a $35 million bill. Unfortunately, the 
liability of that company was only $20 million, so you can understand 
the difficulty that company is in right now.
  That is the reality in which we are dealing, and we have to realize 
that this is a solution to that issue. It is about how we provide power 
to people.
  The only chance I had of meeting President Obama was when he came to 
Utah and visited Hill Air Force Base, and he was there to talk about 
solar power that is being used on Hill Air Force Base.
  Hill Air Force Base also has a great power source that comes from a 
neighboring trash dump, which provides steam and methane power that 
goes to the base itself. And I told the President, when he asked us 
questions about this, that it is very easy for Hill Air Force Base to 
have this power source because it is next door. But for most people, 
they live miles and miles away, and you have to have transmission lines 
that get the power from where it is produced to where they live, and 
often across Federal lands.
  To his credit, President Obama lit up and said: Yes, not only is that 
an important issue, but it is also an issue dealing with our entire 
grid structure that needs to be worked on; another issue that is not 
today's discussion matter.
  And to his credit, his office did contact our office, our committee, 
and started helping us work on some issues. Even though they did not 
stay with us to the final conclusion of the bill, the bill we have 
before us today is the result of those discussions, the result of that 
effort.
  I try to emphasize how bipartisan this bill is; an effort to try and 
solve a real problem that helps real people with real circumstances 
that have caused problems in the past that need to be changed. That is 
what we are attempting to do here.

  So I applaud the committee that came up with this bill. I applaud the 
chief sponsor of that bill. I urge my colleagues to please support 
this. This is the right thing to do if you really care about helping 
people.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  You know, this legislation, with a few modifications, could help 
prevent the 0.03 percent of wildfires that are caused by electricity 
infrastructure, but the majority refused to work with us on those 
modifications.
  Most importantly, the failure to make vegetation management plans for 
utility rights-of-way mandatory negates any positive impact this bill 
might have had. As we have heard from Forest Service and industry at a 
hearing on similar legislation last Congress, voluntary vegetation 
management is already allowed and is quite common. This includes the 
ability for rights-of-way holders to access these areas and conduct 
vegetation management without notifying Federal land managers until 
after the fact. This is current law.
  The majority claims we need this bill to address delays caused by the 
approval of unplanned work and delays

[[Page H5027]]

associated with removing dead trees on public lands outside of rights-
of-way.
  Without an up-front planning requirement, I can see authorizing 
limited activity for utility companies to do targeted vegetation 
management adjacent to rights-of-way. But instead of offering the 
commonsense trade off, the bill before us today simply cuts Federal 
agencies out of the process of managing the American people's land by 
requiring the Forest Service and BLM to approve plans with no option to 
modify or reject them if the plans are inadequate.
  So whatever the company turns in--the utility company turns in, that 
is the plan that will become the management plan for that vegetation, 
regardless of any opinion by Forest Service or BLM.
  Further, the bill does not define ``adjacent,'' meaning that 
companies could cut trees that are well outside the rights-of-way on 
public lands. This makes public lands vulnerable to a level of abuse 
that no one who values them would be willing to support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers and I 
am prepared to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just say that this legislation is a solution without a 
problem. And as I mentioned earlier several times, facts do matter.
  When we are doing a whole-scale change of how we manage rights-of-way 
on public lands because of 0.03 percent of the causation by utility 
lines of fires on public lands, that is a heavyhanded way to approach 
doing legislation. There have been opportunities and modifications, 
opportunities of expediting the process, but those were not allowed as 
part of this legislation.
  If we, indeed, are going to look at both the wildfire situation, the 
budget stress on Forest Service to suppress those fires, and this 
rights-of-way issue, which is miniscule compared to the bigger issues, 
then I think this legislation has to be rejected, and work on a piece 
of legislation that has consensus, that is bipartisan, and that 
addresses the real problems with wildfires in this country, not this 
utility giveaway that we are doing here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chair, again, I commend the bill's 
sponsors for bringing up this bipartisan, commonsense piece of 
legislation. I urge my House colleagues to support this bipartisan 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 
1873--the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act.
  North Carolina is home to four national forests that offer visitors 
and residents access to incredible scenery, wildlife, and a wide 
variety of recreational activities.
  In my district in Western North Carolina, American Forestry 
management has its roots in the Pisgah National Forest: The Cradle of 
Forestry, the very first forestry school in the country, is located 
there.
  Proper forestry management is a part of North Carolina's history that 
we hope to pass on to for our future generations to come.
  I commend my colleagues, Reps. Doug LaMalfa and Kurt Schrader, for 
identifying a problem and for providing a common-sense solution to make 
vegetation management in national forests easier.
  Managing vegetation around power lines is important for ensuring 
electric grid reliability, and for keeping overgrown and falling trees 
from interfering with nearby power lines which can cause blackouts, 
wildfires, and other safety hazards.
  This bill would ensure utility companies, who are responsible for 
vegetation management near power lines on federal lands, are no longer 
delayed by bureaucratic red tape and inconsistent federal standards 
between agencies.
  With the passage of this bill, we will be a step closer to providing 
expedited forestry management plan approval, while also giving utility 
companies the authority to remove hazardous debris in emergency 
situations.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased we are advancing a bipartisan proposal 
today--I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support H.R.1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection 
Act. This important legislation is meant to proactively prevent major 
utility reliability problems before they happen.
  Currently, electric cooperatives in my district own transmission 
lines which cross lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management to provide essential services to rural areas. 
I've heard from my electric coops that before addressing problems with 
these transmission lines, such as clearing downed trees or excess 
debris near utility poles, they must first be granted approval to do 
the work from these federal agencies. Any delay in receiving approval 
costs time, money, and amplifies the impacts of major power outages to 
my constituents.
  Currently, electric coops can be held responsible for damages if a 
tree falls on a power line and causes a fire, even if the coop is still 
awaiting approval to work on clearing the hazardous debris.
  H.R. 1873 will save utilities unnecessary costs and improve 
electricity reliability for consumers by streamlining outdated federal 
land management policies. The language minimizes the need for case-by-
case approvals and instead provides expedited review and approvals for 
routine vegetation management and maintenance activities. Cutting red 
tape will make it easier for electric utility companies to initiate 
preventative measures to manage vegetation and woody debris on right-
of-way transmission lines. This proactive work will mitigate the 
effects of fires and storms by clearing hazardous material before the 
natural disaster hits.
  Just two weeks ago, a major storm with winds up to seventy miles-per-
hour blew through my district and left thousands of my constituents 
without power. The strong winds downed trees and took out power lines, 
severely damaged homes and businesses, and ripped the roofs off of 
barns. Lengthy power outages delay the repairs needed to get storm 
victims' lives back on track. So I am eager to support legislation 
which helps my communities recover from these painful storms as fast as 
possible.
  Storms like these are commonplace in Minnesota. Our electric coops 
are ready to complete the work necessary to mitigate the effects of 
these disasters as much as possible so consumers can have better access 
to electricity, especially during natural disasters. Again, I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be here today in strong 
support of H.R. 1873, the Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection 
Act.
  As we enter wildfire season, it is of the upmost importance that the 
federal government act to prevent these devastating disasters.
  The Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act strengthens 
electric grid reliability while reducing the risk of fires and fire 
hazards caused by poor vegetation management in power line rights-of-
way on federally managed public lands.
  Currently, bureaucratic permitting delays impede electric utility 
companies from effectively managing overgrowth near electric 
infrastructure, which puts these areas at greater risk for a fire 
event. This common-sense, widely-supported, legislation would require 
an expedited federal review process for trees that are dangerously 
close to power lines.
  The effective management of this unruly vegetation is especially 
important in my home state of California, where in 2016, an 
overwhelming 6,986 fires destroyed over 565,000 acres of land 
throughout the state.
  I thank my Colleague from California, Mr. LaMalfa, for his leadership 
on this legislation and I look forward to supporting the Electricity 
Reliability and Forest Protection Act later today.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources printed in 
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
be considered as read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1873

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Electricity Reliability and 
     Forest Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, FACILITY INSPECTION, AND 
                   OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ON FEDERAL LANDS 
                   CONTAINING ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND 
                   DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Title V of the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

[[Page H5028]]

  


     ``SEC. 512. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT, FACILITY INSPECTION, AND 
                   OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE RELATING TO ELECTRIC 
                   TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY RIGHTS-
                   OF-WAY.

       ``(a) General Direction.--In order to enhance the 
     reliability of the electricity grid and reduce the threat of 
     wildfires to and from electric transmission and distribution 
     rights-of-way and related facilities and adjacent property, 
     the Secretary, with respect to public lands and other lands 
     under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, with respect to National Forest System lands, 
     shall provide direction to ensure that all existing and 
     future rights-of-way, however established (including by 
     grant, special use authorization, and easement), for 
     electrical transmission and distribution facilities on such 
     lands include provisions for utility vegetation management, 
     facility inspection, and operation and maintenance activities 
     that, while consistent with applicable law--
       ``(1) are developed in consultation with the holder of the 
     right-of-way;
       ``(2) enable the owner or operator of a facility to operate 
     and maintain the facility in good working order and to comply 
     with Federal, State and local electric system reliability and 
     fire safety requirements, including reliability standards 
     established by the Electric Reliability Organization as 
     defined under 16 U.S.C. 824o(a) and plans to meet such 
     reliability standards;
       ``(3) minimize the need for case-by-case or annual 
     approvals for--
       ``(A) routine vegetation management, facility inspection, 
     and operation and maintenance activities within existing 
     electrical transmission and distribution rights-of-way; and
       ``(B) utility vegetation management activities that are 
     necessary to control hazard trees within or adjacent to 
     electrical transmission and distribution rights-of-way; and
       ``(4) when review is required, provide for expedited review 
     and approval of utility vegetation management, facility 
     inspection, and operation and maintenance activities, 
     especially activities requiring prompt action to avoid an 
     adverse impact on human safety or electric reliability to 
     avoid fire hazards.
       ``(b) Vegetation Management, Facility Inspection, and 
     Operation and Maintenance Plans.--
       ``(1) Development and submission.--Consistent with 
     subsection (a), the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall provide owners and operators of electric 
     transmission and distribution facilities located on lands 
     described in such subsection with the option to develop and 
     submit a vegetation management, facility inspection, and 
     operation and maintenance plan, that at each transmission or 
     distribution owner or operator's discretion may cover some or 
     all of the owner or operator's transmission and distribution 
     rights-of-way on Federal lands, for approval to the Secretary 
     with jurisdiction over the lands. A plan under this paragraph 
     shall enable the owner or operator of a facility, at a 
     minimum, to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local 
     electric system reliability and fire safety requirements, as 
     provided in subsection (a)(2). The Secretaries shall not have 
     the authority to modify those requirements.
       ``(2) Review and approval process.--The Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly develop a consolidated 
     and coordinated process for review and approval of--
       ``(A) vegetation management, facility inspection, and 
     operation and maintenance plans submitted under paragraph (1) 
     that--
       ``(i) assures prompt review and approval not to exceed 90 
     days;
       ``(ii) includes timelines and benchmarks for agency 
     comments to submitted plans and final approval of such plans;
       ``(iii) is consistent with applicable law; and
       ``(iv) minimizes the costs of the process to the reviewing 
     agency and the entity submitting the plans; and
       ``(B) amendments to the plans in a prompt manner if changed 
     conditions necessitate a modification to a plan.
       ``(3) Notification.--The review and approval process under 
     paragraph (2) shall--
       ``(A) include notification by the agency of any changed 
     conditions that warrant a modification to a plan;
       ``(B) provide an opportunity for the owner or operator to 
     submit a proposed plan amendment to address directly the 
     changed condition; and
       ``(C) allow the owner or operator to continue to implement 
     those elements of the approved plan that do not directly and 
     adversely affect the condition precipitating the need for 
     modification.
       ``(4) Categorical exclusion process.--The Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall apply his or her categorical 
     exclusion process under the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to plans developed under 
     this subsection on existing transmission and distribution 
     rights-of-way under this subsection.
       ``(5) Implementation.--A plan approved under this 
     subsection shall become part of the authorization governing 
     the covered right-of-way and hazard trees adjacent to the 
     right-of-way. If a vegetation management plan is proposed for 
     an existing transmission or distribution facility concurrent 
     with the siting of a new transmission or distribution 
     facility, necessary reviews shall be completed as part of the 
     siting process or sooner. Once the plan is approved, the 
     owner or operator shall provide the agency with only a 
     notification of activities anticipated to be undertaken in 
     the coming year, a description of those activities, and 
     certification that the activities are in accordance with the 
     plan.
       ``(6) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Vegetation management, facility inspection, and 
     operation and maintenance plan.--The term `vegetation 
     management, facility inspection, and operation and 
     maintenance plan' means a plan that--
       ``(i) is prepared by the owner or operator of one or more 
     electrical transmission or distribution facilities to cover 
     one or more electric transmission and distribution rights-of-
     way; and
       ``(ii) provides for the long-term, cost-effective, 
     efficient and timely management of facilities and vegetation 
     within the width of the right-of-way and adjacent Federal 
     lands to enhance electricity reliability, promote public 
     safety, and avoid fire hazards.
       ``(B) Owner or operator.--The terms `owner' and `operator' 
     include contractors or other agents engaged by the owner or 
     operator of a facility.
       ``(C) Hazard tree.--The term `hazard tree' means any tree 
     inside the right-of-way or located outside the right-of-way 
     that has been designated, prior to tree failure, by either 
     the owner or operator of a transmission or distribution 
     facility, or the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture, 
     to be likely to fail and cause a high risk of injury, damage, 
     or disruption within 10 feet or less of an electric power 
     line or related structure if it fell.
       ``(c) Response to Emergency Conditions.--If vegetation on 
     Federal lands within, or hazard trees on Federal lands 
     adjacent to, an electrical transmission or distribution 
     right-of-way granted by the Secretary or the Secretary of 
     Agriculture has contacted or is in imminent danger of 
     contacting one or more electric transmission or distribution 
     lines, the owner or operator of the transmission or 
     distribution lines--
       ``(1) may prune or remove the vegetation or hazard tree to 
     avoid the disruption of electric service and risk of fire; 
     and
       ``(2) shall notify the appropriate local agent of the 
     relevant Secretary not later than 24 hours after such 
     removal.
       ``(d) Compliance With Applicable Reliability and Safety 
     Standards.--If vegetation on Federal lands within or adjacent 
     to an electrical transmission or distribution right-of-way 
     under the jurisdiction of each Secretary does not meet 
     clearance requirements under standards established by the 
     Electric Reliability Organization as defined under 16 U.S.C. 
     824o(a), or by State and local authorities, and the Secretary 
     having jurisdiction over the lands has failed to act to allow 
     a transmission or distribution facility owner or operator to 
     conduct vegetation management activities within 3 business 
     days after receiving a request to allow such activities, the 
     owner or operator may, after notifying the Secretary, conduct 
     such vegetation management activities to meet those clearance 
     requirements.
       ``(e) Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary or Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall report requests and actions made under 
     subsections (c) and (d) annually on each Secretary's website.
       ``(f) Liability.--An owner or operator of a transmission or 
     distribution facility shall not be held liable for wildfire 
     damage, loss or injury, including the cost of fire 
     suppression, if--
       ``(1) the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture fails 
     to allow the owner or operator to operate consistently with 
     an approved vegetation management, facility inspection, and 
     operation and maintenance plan on Federal lands under the 
     relevant Secretary's jurisdiction within or adjacent to a 
     right-of-way to comply with Federal, State or local electric 
     system reliability and fire safety standards, including 
     standards established by the Electric Reliability 
     Organization as defined under 16 U.S.C. 824o(a); or
       ``(2) the Secretary or the Secretary of Agriculture fails 
     to allow the owner or operator of the transmission or 
     distribution facility to perform appropriate vegetation 
     management activities in response to a hazard tree as defined 
     under subsection (b)(6), or a tree in imminent danger of 
     contacting the owner's or operator's transmission or 
     distribution facility.
       ``(g) Training and Guidance.--In consultation with the 
     electric utility industry, the Secretary and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture are encouraged to develop a program to train 
     personnel of the Department of the Interior and the Forest 
     Service involved in vegetation management decisions on 
     rights-of-way relating to transmission and distribution 
     facilities to ensure that such personnel--
       ``(1) understand electric system reliability and fire 
     safety requirements, including reliability standards 
     established by the Electric Reliability Organization as 
     defined under 16 U.S.C. 824o(a);
       ``(2) assist owners and operators of transmission and 
     distribution facilities to comply with applicable electric 
     reliability and fire safety requirements; and
       ``(3) encourage and assist willing owners and operators of 
     transmission and distribution facilities to incorporate on a 
     voluntary basis vegetation management practices to enhance 
     habitats and forage for pollinators and for other wildlife so 
     long as the practices are compatible with the integrated 
     vegetation management practices necessary for reliability and 
     safety.
       ``(h) Implementation.--The Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture shall--
       ``(1) not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, prescribe regulations, or amend 
     existing regulations, to implement this section; and
       ``(2) not later than two years after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, finalize regulations, or amend 
     existing regulations, to implement this section.
       ``(i) Existing Vegetation Management, Facility Inspection 
     and Operation and Maintenance Plans.--Nothing in this section 
     requires an owner or operator to develop and submit a 
     vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation and 
     maintenance plan if one has already been approved by the 
     Secretary or Secretary of Agriculture before the date of the 
     enactment of this section.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1761 et seq.), is

[[Page H5029]]

     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 511 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 512. Vegetation management, facility inspection, and operation 
              and maintenance relating to electric transmission and 
              distribution facility rights-of-way.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of House 
Report 115-186. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Carbajal

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-186.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 5, beginning on line 10, strike ``the Secretary and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture shall provide''.
       Page 5, beginning on line 13, strike ``with the option to'' 
     and insert ``shall''.
       Page 5, beginning on line 16, strike ``plan, that at each 
     transmission or distribution owner or operator's discretion 
     may cover some or all'' and insert ``plan covering all''.
       Page 6, beginning on line 1, strike ``The Secretaries shall 
     not have the authority to modify those requirements.''.
       Page 6, beginning on line 10, strike ``and approval'' and 
     insert ``, approval, denial, or modification''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Carbajal) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 1873 ensures that we 
make up-front vegetation management planning a requirement for 
utilities that hold transmission rights-of-way on public lands.
  I agree with Mr. LaMalfa's intent to address the threats of 
wildfires. Coming from local government, as the former county 
supervisor for Santa Barbara, I have experienced firsthand the 
obstacles and challenges of balancing red tape and coordination among 
stakeholders.
  Now, as the Representative for the Central Coast in California, I can 
tell you, we are no strangers to wildfires. Just last year, my district 
witnessed the devastating impacts of the Rey and Sherpa fires.
  Unfortunately, the impacts of these wildfires are widespread. The 
Sherpa fire burned 7,474 acres in Santa Barbara County and the Los 
Padres National Forest for nearly a month last June. Then in January of 
this year, the heavy rains in the area triggered mudslides and 
flooding.
  If we can take action to prevent wildfires, we should. We know it 
pays to be prepared. Congress needs to act to improve better 
coordination and clarity between Federal and land managers and utility 
companies that hold rights-of-way on public lands. In improving 
coordination, we can help utilities prevent fires due to overgrown 
vegetation or trees contacting power lines.
  In turn, it would help the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land 
Management respond more quickly and consistently for requests to access 
and maintain rights-of-way on public lands. At the same time, the 
agencies can function as good stewards of our natural resources while 
enhancing their effectiveness in addressing fire hazard vegetation.
  While well-intentioned, H.R. 1873 does not solve the problem of poor 
coordination.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill does not address the threats of 
wildfires because the rights-of-way maintenance plans described in the 
legislation are voluntary. Currently, owners of transmission lines can 
work with the Federal land managers to develop these plans. This is no 
different than the status quo.
  That is why I introduced my amendment to ensure that we make up-front 
planning a requirement for utilities.

                              {time}  1545

  I urge passage of my amendment to make sure that we are prepared and 
minimize the threats of wildfires.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chair, the goal of H.R. 1873 is to 
provide certainty to utilities, their line workers, and their 
consumers, not forcing unnecessary, one-size-fits-all regulations.
  Each plan can be tailored by an individual utility based on the 
service territory, region, and other characteristics. Some utilities 
may not choose to submit plans because they are satisfied with their 
local Forest Service office. Others, especially those who have rights-
of-ways that predate the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, may 
not want to trigger Federal paperwork costs that are ultimately passed 
on to their consumers.
  This amendment, if adopted, would significantly burden Federal Land 
Management agencies by inundating them with all kinds of submittals. 
Additionally, if you want to increase the cost of this bill, then this 
amendment will do just that.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I would 
inject additional bureaucracy into the bill that is unintended to do 
exactly the opposite of what this bill intended to do.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, unfortunately, this bill is in search of a 
problem. Voluntary is the status quo. That is the case today, and we 
see the wildfires happen day in and day out. So, again, I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Carbajal).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Sinema

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-186.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 12, line 9, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 12, line 16, strike the period and inserting ``; 
     and''.
       Page 12, after line 16, insert the following:
       ``(4) understand how existing and emerging unmanned 
     technologies can help electric utilities, Federal, State, and 
     local governments, and private landowners to more efficiently 
     identify vegetation management needs, lower ratepayer energy 
     costs, and reduce the risk of wildfires.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Sinema) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 
Grijalva for their leadership. I also thank Congressman LaMalfa, 
Congressman Schrader, and all of the other Members for their hard work 
on this issue. In particular, I thank Congressman Gosar, who is here 
today, Congressman Tipton, and Congressman O'Halleran for cosponsoring 
our bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Sinema amendment ensures the Forest Service and the 
Department of the Interior are educated on how unmanned technologies 
are transforming the energy industry to improve maintenance, lower 
costs, and reduce the risk of wildfires. Unmanned technology is 
changing the way Arizonans do business.
  Currently, energy companies use manned helicopters to check 
transmission lines and direct repair and maintenance crews. This work 
ensures Arizona's electric grid remains resilient, reliable, efficient, 
and that it

[[Page H5030]]

works when Arizona families and businesses need it. But utilities and 
cooperatives believe that unmanned technology can improve the way we 
manage our energy infrastructure. Unmanned technologies can monitor 
transmission lines quickly and safely in multiple locations, enabling 
more efficient operations and maintenance.
  They provide better situational awareness to crews and managers, 
reducing accidents and workplace injuries. It also improves vegetation 
management, disaster prevention, and disaster response. These are 
critical issues in my home State of Arizona. In rural areas, our 
transmission and distribution lines run through Federal land that are 
prone to wildfires.
  I am a cosponsor of the underlying bill because I recognize the 
importance of keeping these rights-of-way clear of dry brush and fallen 
trees. Streamlining the process that allows us to perform routine 
maintenance and prevent wildfires that too often endanger our 
communities is just commonsense. Our bipartisan amendment improves the 
underlying bill by ensuring that unmanned technologies integrate 
appropriately, quickly, and effectively into broader vegetation 
management, disaster prevention, and disaster response strategies.
  Unmanned technologies have the potential to improve efficiency, lower 
energy costs for Arizona families and businesses, and reduce the risk 
of dangerous wildfires by ensuring that rights-of-way are reliable and 
properly maintained. Federal agencies should be prepared to embrace 
these smart technologies.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Sinema amendment 
and the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition, although I am not opposed.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment to 
H.R. 1873. This bipartisan amendment would ensure that personnel 
involved in vegetation management decisions understand the benefit that 
unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, or drones, can add to the 
maintenance and management of transmission lines.
  In 2017, not only does this policy make sense, it is essential. Our 
electric grid and forests should be protected with this effective and 
cost-efficient technology, which has proven its worth in so many other 
areas, including national defense and private industry.
  In my home State of Arizona, UAVs have proven to be highly valuable 
tools in forest management. Utilizing UAV expertise from Embry-Riddle 
Aeronautical University in Prescott, Arizona, as well as Northern 
Arizona University in Flagstaff, land managers have greatly improved 
their ability to monitor forest conditions both at scale and down to 
the detail of individual trees and branches.
  Proper vegetation management around transmission lines is essential 
to preventing power outages and dangerous forest fires. UAV technology 
makes transmission line monitoring safer, cheaper, and more effective.
  As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to our constituents 
to pursue smarter, safer, and cheaper approaches to public policy and 
resource management. This amendment and this bill allow us to do so in 
a bipartisan way. I am proud to partner with the gentlewoman from 
Arizona on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to extend my thanks to my 
friend and colleague, Mr. Gosar from Arizona. I encourage my fellow 
Members to support the amendment and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Beyer

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part A of House Report 115-186.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the bill.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. NO LOSS OF FUNDS FOR WILD-FIRE SUPPRESSION.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall detract from the availability of funds or other 
     resources for wild-fire suppression.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the bill before us today is a 
well-intentioned attempt to create a process which would minimize the 
risk of fire along electrical utilities' rights-of-way. Yes, there are 
some problems with the bill, but my most significant objection is that 
this bill, our Natural Resources Committee, and this Congress refuse to 
act on the urgent need to address how our U.S. Forest Service deals 
with wildfires.
  The Forest Service burned through more than half of its budget last 
year fighting wildfires. Yet our leadership won't bring to the floor 
for a vote a bipartisan legislation that deals with the problem of 
``fire borrowing.''
  In the 114th Congress, just such a bill, the Wildfire Disaster 
Funding Act had 151 cosponsors--67 Republicans, 84 Democrats--but it 
never even got a committee hearing. So that is disappointing, and even 
irresponsible.
  So, once again, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management 
are going to go into this fire season knowing that they don't have the 
resources to do the work necessary to mitigate wildfire damage on U.S. 
public lands.
  In a recent report on fire suppression costs, the Forest Service 
reported that funding available for recreation, heritage, and 
wilderness had fallen 15 percent; funding for roads is down 46 percent; 
facility spending, off 68 percent; deferred maintenance outlays have 
been slashed by a disastrous 95 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, in my two terms on the Natural Resources Committee, we 
often debate and fret about how little money is available for 
maintenance of our public lands, the deferred maintenance. The 
diversion of these funds for wildfire suppression is among the many 
causes.
  Non-fire-related staff has been cut by 39 percent since 1998, and 
over the last two decades, the cost of fire preparedness and 
suppression activities has grown from 62 percent of the Forest 
Service's total budget, to more than half--52 percent.
  That shift has come at the expense of programs and staff that every 
American wants: staff on recreation, permits, timber sales, hunting, 
and fishing. Everything else is suffering because of our inability to 
deal in a constructive way with wildfire mitigation.
  So now is the time that we address wildfires to be treated as the 
major disasters they are and for the efforts to put them out, to be 
eligible for disaster assistance, and not subtract it from funds that 
land managers need to do their daily jobs.
  So my very simple one-sentence amendment simply says that no money in 
this bill--this bill will not divert legitimate wildfire mitigation 
money more to wildfires than is already there.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' on my amendment so, at the very least, we 
can prevent this bill from detracting from further Federal wildfire 
suppression efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition 
to this amendment, but I am not opposed to it.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the amendment prohibits any 
loss of funds for wildfire suppression activities. The bill also 
provides electric utilities with the certainty that they need to ensure 
that downed trees do not fall on power lines, which would prevent many 
of these wildfires from starting in the first place.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5031]]

  

  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my friend from Florida for his 
support for this sensible amendment, and I hope that we can proceed.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Carbajal

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Carbajal) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 243, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 314]

                               AYES--171

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--243

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Aderholt
     Blum
     Comstock
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Gabbard
     Higgins (NY)
     Johnson, Sam
     Larsen (WA)
     Long
     Lynch
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise
     Weber (TX)
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1622

  Messrs. CHAFFETZ, FERGUSON, ROE of Tennessee, GARRETT, KNIGHT, ROSS, 
MOONEY of West Virginia, PETERS, BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania, 
O'HALLERAN, KIND, and SCHNEIDER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
no.''
  Messrs. CARSON of Indiana, LIPINSKI, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of 
Texas, Mr. DOGGETT, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, and Mr. GARAMENDI changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Donovan) having assumed the chair, Mr. Womack, 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. 1873) to amend 
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to enhance the 
reliability of the electricity grid and reduce the threat of wildfires 
to and from electric transmission and distribution facilities on 
Federal lands by facilitating vegetation management on such lands, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 392, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ was allowed to speak out 
of order.)


                  Congressional Women's Softball Game

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you with your 
congressional women's softball team, who are tanned, rested, and ready 
to beat the press tonight.
  Our bipartisan team has been practicing for the last 3 months at 7 in 
the morning, two to three mornings a week, with batting practice at 
night at the cages at the Nationals training academy.
  We have been singularly focused on two things--I know it doesn't make 
sense, because that would mean it wasn't singularly--making sure that 
we can continue to raise awareness about the risk that young women face 
of breast cancer and to make sure that we can shine a spotlight on the 
fact that young women can and do get breast cancer.
  This is our ninth annual game. It is the eighth time that we are 
playing the common ``enemy''--we say that affectionately--the female 
Capitol press corps. They have been incredible partners in helping this 
year cross the incredible milestone of raising more than $1 million for 
the Young Survival Coalition. We are so proud of that.
  We want to thank our coaches who have been remarkable through all 
these years. Of course, we have our head coach, Torie Barnes, Jo Ann 
Emerson's daughter, who was the cofounder of this game 9 years ago; our 
own House favorite, Natalie Buchanan, who is an amazing new mom who has

[[Page H5032]]

been out there with us, in spite of just having a baby a few short 
months ago; Coach Jim, who has been amazing as well; and, of course, 
our very own colleague, Coach Ed Perlmutter from the great State of 
Colorado.
  Come on out tonight at 7 p.m. at Watkins Recreation Center, 420 12th 
Street, SE. Turn right at the CVS.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), my 
cocaptain, friend, and fellow appropriator.
  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I think everyone would agree with me when I 
say that, in the midst of the tragedy and horror last week, there are 
also special moments that brought us together and reminded us of what 
is really important. One was right here in this Chamber, where we heard 
touching speeches from Paul Ryan and Leader Pelosi; another was at the 
baseball game when the entire Capitol Hill community gathered in an 
amazing show of support for our friend, Steve Scalise, our Capitol 
Police officers and their heroic acts; as well as Matt, Zack, David, 
and Crystal; and all of those who were involved.
  That spirit of unity and togetherness is a big part of why we play 
this softball game. Our relationships as Members of Congress are 
stronger because of this game. I don't think we can have too many 
reminders about the importance of unity and friendship.
  I encourage all Members and staff to come join us tonight and go to 
bat for this great cause. Unlike the baseball game, Republicans and 
Democrats don't compete against each other. We team up against one 
opponent we can all agree on: the press.
  So, beat cancer, beat the press.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 300, 
noes 118, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               AYES--300

     Abraham
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bera
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Eshoo
     Estes (KS)
     Esty (CT)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Himes
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kihuen
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawson (FL)
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Panetta
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Torres
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--118

     Adams
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Ellison
     Engel
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Langevin
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Nadler
     Neal
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Aderholt
     Blum
     Comstock
     Cummings
     Gabbard
     Higgins (NY)
     Johnson, Sam
     Larsen (WA)
     Long
     Napolitano
     Scalise
     Weber (TX)
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1639

  Messrs. KEATING and PALLONE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 
314 and 315 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Carbajal Amendment. I 
would also have voted ``nay'' on H.R. 1873--Electricity Reliability and 
Forest Protection Act.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I was not present today, June 21, for 
rollcall votes. I was attending a memorial service in my district. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 311, ``yea'' 
on rollcall No. 312, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 313, ``nay'' on rollcall 
No. 314, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 315.

                          ____________________