[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.
____________________