[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 182 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8614-H8641]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              HYDROPOWER POLICY MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2017


                             General Leave

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
in the Record extraneous material on H.R. 3043.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 607 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. 3043.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1343


                     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. 3043) to modernize hydropower policy, and for other purposes, 
with Mr. Hultgren in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read 
the first time.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3043, the 
Hydropower

[[Page H8615]]

Policy Modernization Act of 2017. This legislation, introduced by my 
friend and colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Cathy 
McMorris Rodgers, is an important step toward modernizing our energy 
infrastructure, creating jobs, and, yes, strengthening our economy. I 
want to thank her for her commitment to this issue.
  The committee went through regular order with the bill. We held two 
hearings on background issues, one legislative hearing, and both 
subcommittee and full committee markups, where the bill was agreed to 
by a voice vote. Following the markups, bipartisan committee staff held 
more meetings to hear from over a dozen Tribal governments to gather 
additional views.
  I think that the resulting bill strikes a careful balance. Changes 
were made to increase State and Tribal consultation requirements, and a 
very strong savings clause was added to protect States' authorities 
under the Clean Water Act.
  Hydropower is an essential component of an all-of-the-above energy 
strategy for this country. Hydropower is clean; it is renewable and 
affordable base load power. It is good for consumers' electricity 
bills, and it is also good for jobs, which is why labor is strongly 
supportive of this legislation.
  There is a tremendous opportunity to expand hydropower production on 
existing nonpowered dams. Less than 3 percent of the dams in the U.S., 
approximately 2,200 dams, produce electricity. There are also 
opportunities to improve the process for the projects that are due for 
relicensing. By 2030, over 400 existing projects, with almost 19,000 
megawatts of capacity, will begin the relicensing process, and these 
projects, in fact, may be at risk.
  Fixing the licensing process would also improve safety. Upgrading the 
performance of existing dams and utilizing existing nonpowered dams, 
canals, and conduits would enable investments, which would address 
aging dams and, yes, improve overall safety.
  The duration, complexity, and uncertainty of the hydropower licensing 
process creates significant challenges that prevent investments that 
would create jobs and benefit consumers. The licensing process for a 
new hydropower development project can last over a decade and costs 
tens of millions of dollars--significantly longer than the time that it 
takes to construct a natural gas-fired power plant of the same size.
  This legislation, H.R. 3043, would level the playing field by 
modernizing the permitting process without compromising environmental 
protections. The bill improves administrative efficiency, 
accountability, and transparency. It requires balanced, timely 
decisionmaking and reduces duplicative oversight from the multiple 
Federal agencies that review hydropower applications.
  This bill brings certainty and timeliness to the licensing process by 
enhancing consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies and 
Indian Tribes, and it requires FERC to establish a process for setting 
the schedule for review. H.R. 3043 streamlines and improves procedures 
to identify scheduling issues, propose licensing conditions, and 
resolve disputes.
  This bill also contains provisions to expedite the approval process 
for an amendment to a license for a qualifying hydro project upgrade. 
Without the hydropower licensing improvements in this bill--without 
them--we risk losing investment opportunities in new hydropower 
infrastructure which would benefit consumers with affordable 
electricity and expand the use of clean, renewable energy.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their work, and the great staff, on 
this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and 
           Government Reform,
                                 Washington, DC, October 31, 2017.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 3043, the 
     ``Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.'' This bill 
     contains provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform. As a result of your 
     having consulted with me concerning the provisions of the 
     bill that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to 
     forgo consideration of the bill so the bill may proceed 
     expeditiously to the House floor.
       The Committee takes this action with our mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 3043 at 
     this time we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject 
     matter contained in this or similar legislation, and we will 
     be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or 
     similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any 
     remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. 
     Further, I request your support for the appointment of 
     conferees from the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform during any House-Senate conference convened on this or 
     related legislation.
       Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter 
     confirming this understanding and ask that a copy of our 
     exchange of letters on this matter be included in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof.
           Sincerely,
     Trey Gowdy.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 2017.
     Hon. Trey Gowdy,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gowdy: Thank you for your letter concerning 
     H.R. 3043, Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017. As 
     you note, this bill contains provisions within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform, and appreciate your agreement to forgo consideration 
     of the bill so the bill may proceed expeditiously to the 
     House floor.
       I agree that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 3043 at 
     this time, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     does not waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter 
     contained in this or similar legislation, and you will be 
     appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or similar 
     legislation moves forward so that you may address any 
     remaining issues that fall within your Rule X jurisdiction. 
     Further, I will support the appointment of conferees from the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform during any 
     House-Senate conference convened on this or related 
     legislation.
       Finally, a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter 
     will be included in the Congressional Record during floor 
     consideration thereof.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Greg Walden,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3043, the 
Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.
  Mr. Chairman, while Members on both sides of the aisle support 
hydropower, unfortunately, the bill before us today is deeply flawed 
and will not modernize or improve the hydropower licensing process. 
Instead, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 would place private profits above the 
public interest by giving priority of our public waterways to industry 
in order to generate power and profits over and above the rights and 
the interests of Native Tribes or farmers or fishermen, boaters, and 
other stakeholders who also rely on these public rivers and streams.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very important for us to remember that 
hydroelectric licenses can span between 30 and 50 years, and, under 
existing law, a license holder can be granted automatic yearly 
extensions in perpetuity without even having to reapply.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue is far too important for us not to get it 
right this time. And what does H.R. 3043 actually do?
  This bill will make the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, 
the lead agency over the licensing process and will require Native 
Tribes, the States, and other Federal resource agencies to pay 
deference to the Commission, even in areas where FERC has absolutely no 
expertise or statutory authority, including on issues regarding 
agricultural water use, drinking water protection, fisheries 
management, and recreational river use. How absurd, Mr. Chairman.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 would expand and alter the 
trial-type hearing provisions on the Federal Power Act, essentially 
rigging the process in favor of industry by providing multiple new 
entry points to challenge conditions designed by Federal resource 
agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, the threat of these timely and costly hearings may be 
used to coerce agencies to propose weaker conditions, and, at the same 
time, this bill also shifts the venue for these hearings to FERC, which 
is another very obvious handout and handover to industry.
  Mr. Chairman, in testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
we heard, repeatedly, that a major

[[Page H8616]]

cause for licensing delays was due to incomplete applications that do 
not include all the pertinent information that is necessary to issue a 
decision.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address 
this very, very serious issue. In fact, this bill will implement strict 
timelines on Federal resource agencies, States, and Tribes, but does 
not require applicants to submit all of their information to these 
agencies before the clock actually starts ticking.
  Mr. Chairman, FERC, itself, the very agency that will be charged with 
implementing this grossly bad bill, FERC, itself, disputed claims that 
this bill would streamline the licensing process, noting that the 
legislation ``could increase the complexity and the length of the 
licensing process.'' These are FERC's words, FERC's words before the 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow hydropower facilities to claim a 
monopoly over our public waterways without mitigating the negative 
impacts of these facilities on others who rely on these resources and 
without, at the same time, without complying with modern environmental 
laws.
  H.R. 3043, Mr. Chairman, is opposed by States, opposed by the Native 
Tribes, opposed by the outdoor recreation industry and by more than 150 
national and local environmental organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, it is for all of these reasons that I, too, stand in 
concert and side by side with Native Tribes, the outdoor recreation 
industry, and the other 150 national and local environmental 
organizations. It is for these reasons that I, too, must oppose this 
bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the author 
of this legislation.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all of the work 
that has gone into this legislation, and I rise in support and urge 
support of the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.
  Hydropower serves as the Nation's largest source of clean, renewable, 
reliable, and affordable energy. In my home State of Washington, it is 
roughly 70 percent of our electricity that comes from hydropower. It is 
one of the reasons that we enjoy some of the lowest electricity rates 
in the country.
  Only 3 percent of the dams produce electricity, and there is room for 
tremendous potential to increase production of this renewable energy 
resource. In fact, we could double hydropower production and create an 
estimated 700,000 new jobs without building a single new dam, simply by 
updating the technology in our existing infrastructure and streamlining 
the relicensing process. But we must reduce the regulatory burden to 
allow this process to move forward.
  This legislation seeks to streamline the relicensing process in an 
inclusive and environmentally friendly way. On average, it only takes 
18 months to authorize or relicense a new natural gas facility--18 
months--but it can take up to 10 years or longer to license a new 
hydropower project or relicense an existing facility--10 years.
  Right now, it can be extremely costly and an uncertain process to 
relicense an existing dam or license a new dam. Investors are pursuing 
other base load sources of energy because of the current regulatory 
process. I want to encourage these investments so that we can support 
and expand renewable, carbon-free hydropower.
  As I understand it, hydropower is well-supported by my colleagues, 
but many think we are tipping the scales in favor of this source.
  First, I would like to define industry. We are hearing a lot about 
industry on the other side.

  In eastern Washington, many of these dams are owned by small PUDs who 
pass on all of the costs to the ratepayers. These costs are delivered 
to the people of eastern Washington and throughout the United States. 
These are not major corporations.
  I have also heard that we are lowering environmental standards during 
the licensing process for Tribes and States. At the request of the 
Western Governors' Association, we added language to clarify that 
nothing in this bill--nothing in this bill--will touch the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 
the Endangered Species Act, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 
or the National Historic Preservation Act.
  I have also heard that we did not allow Tribes and States to testify 
on this bill. I struggle with these comments. This bill has gone 
through regular order. We have held multiple hearings. We had a member 
from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on one of the panels. It passed out 
of committee with a voice vote because concerns were raised from the 
Tribes, and we committed to sitting down and working with the Tribes to 
attempt to reach some language. I am proud of our efforts in that 
regard, and I am greatly disappointed that, at the end of the day, the 
Tribes did not come to an agreement on the legislation.

                              {time}  1400

  Although we weren't able to reach that resolution, we do protect the 
integrity of this legislation.
  Licenses are complex, but there is no excuse for a process to take 10 
years. It is time to update the approval process and make hydropower 
production easier and less costly without sacrificing environmental 
review. That is exactly what the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 
2017 will do.
  Specifically, my legislation designates FERC as the lead agency for 
the purpose of coordinating all applications of Federal authorizations, 
and establishes coordinated procedures for the licensing of hydropower 
projects.
  By designating FERC as the lead when coordinating with agencies, 
States, and Tribes, there will be added transparency and collaboration. 
This added certainty in the relicensing process will diminish the 
burden on resource agencies, help avoid unnecessary delays, and 
ultimately lower costs to my constituents.
  My legislation also incentivizes capital-intensive projects like 
updating turbines or improving fish ladders. Right now, these upgrades 
are only included in the lifespan of a dam's license during the 
relicensing window.
  Included in the legislation is an early action provision requiring 
FERC to include all protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures 
during the relicensing process. In addition, the legislation allows the 
timely and efficient completion of licensing procedures by minimizing 
the duplication of studies and establishing a program to compile a 
comprehensive collection of studies and data on a regional or basin-
wide scale. At the same time, industry has the option to help pay for 
studies and staff resources to speed up the process.
  As a co-chair of the Northwest Energy Caucus, I recognize and I am 
excited about the tremendous potential hydropower brings not just to my 
district in eastern Washington, but to the country. By utilizing 
currently untapped resources and unleashing American ingenuity, 
hydropower production will lower energy costs and help create jobs.
  This bill is not about changing outcomes or environmental law. This 
bill is about speeding up the process and saving time and money.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support clean American 
energy and to support the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), from the State that made such 
a significant and giant step last night to making our Nation a better 
nation, the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Rush, our ranking member of the 
subcommittee, for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3043.
  I support hydropower. It can deliver low-carbon, affordable power if 
it is well-sited and managed. But these facilities, which are licensed 
for 30 to 50 years, can do enormous harm to fisheries, agriculture, and 
recreational cultural resources if not properly overseen. The 
hydropower licensing process can be more efficient, but electric 
utilities should not be permitted to operate without license conditions 
that ensure other public interests are met.
  As I look at H.R. 3043 and weigh it against the list of stakeholders 
with interests in the rivers and watersheds

[[Page H8617]]

that provide hydroelectric facilities their fuel, I see a bill that is 
unbalanced, regressive, and dangerous; that will harm farmers, 
fishermen, boaters, Tribes, and drinking water.
  H.R. 3043 will allow private hydropower companies to use public water 
resources to generate power and profit, but without mitigating the 
negative impacts of their facilities on others who rely on our rivers, 
and without complying with modern environmental laws.
  H.R. 3043, is a direct assault on States' rights, Tribal rights, and 
it undercuts major environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act, 
the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. 
It prioritizes the use of rivers for power generation above the needs 
of all other water uses, and it inserts the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission into decisions that it has no authority, experience, or 
expertise to make.
  So what this bill will not do is speed up the licensing process. FERC 
testified before our committee that one of the causes of delay in the 
licensing process was the failure of the applicant to provide a 
complete application, yet this bill does nothing to ensure that an 
applicant provides one. It makes no sense to impose a deadline if there 
is no clearly defined starting point in the form of a completed 
application.
  How can a State make a decision on a water quality certificate if the 
applicant hasn't submitted the information that State needs to make 
that decision?
  While FERC requires applicants to submit a complete application on 
the matters over which it has direct responsibility, the Commission has 
many times denied a similar opportunity to State and Federal agencies 
with regard to matters where they have primacy. In fact, FERC has a 
history of merely consulting with other stakeholders while dismissing 
their concerns and failing to incorporate minimal resource protections 
into hydropower licenses.
  As an example, FERC recently failed to impose a number of conditions 
the State of West Virginia included in its water quality certificate 
for a project on the Monongahela River. FERC did this in spite of the 
fact that West Virginia acted in a timely manner. West Virginia acted 
in accordance with its law and delegated responsibility under the Clean 
Water Act.
  Yesterday, I sent a letter with several of my colleagues to FERC 
expressing concern over the process it used on this project.
  This bill virtually ensures that type of situation will be repeated. 
Now, a project that is noncontroversial, supported by the State, is 
likely to be stalled by hearings and other possible litigation that 
could have been avoided.
  Mr. Chair, the truth is that H.R. 3043 treats Federal agencies, State 
governments, and Indian Tribes as second class citizens in this 
process. FERC is required to consult with them, but consultation does 
not ensure they will get FERC's support to fulfill their missions.
  In this bill, all of the discipline is applied to government 
agencies, but none to the applicant. This is especially true in the 
case of license renewals. Any license that wants to avoid new 
investments or operating conditions can certainly do so because FERC 
will grant them automatic annual license renewal for as many years as 
they need.
  Another reason why this bill will not expedite hydroelectric licenses 
is because, rather than streamlining the process, H.R. 3043 greatly 
expands litigation opportunities, something that will increase the 
expense and time required to award a license. It does this by providing 
for a biased, costly trial-type hearing process to secure decisions in 
the utility's favor.
  Current law allows a single opportunity to challenge an agency 
condition to avoid undue expense and delay in the licensing process. 
H.R. 3043 expands the opportunities to challenge agency decisions, 
allows multiple challenges, and moves the venue for these hearings.
  Not even FERC thinks that this is a good idea. In fact, at our 
hearing on this bill, the Deputy Associate General Counsel of FERC 
advised the committee to either retain the existing trial-type hearing 
process or eliminate it altogether.
  Well, that advice obviously fell on deaf ears because the bill puts 
the trial-type hearing process on steroids. In essence, the private 
hydro companies pick the venue, set the rules, and secure additional 
points in the license process to challenge conditions that Federal 
resource agencies or FERC seeks to impose on a license to protect 
public interests. FERC warned that this change would increase the 
expense, complexity, and the length of licensing process--hardly the 
traits you would associate with streamlining.
  Ultimately, the bill is a bad bill because it is bad for Native 
Americans; it is bad for the environment; it is bad for recreation; it 
is bad for farmers and agriculture; and H.R. 3043 is bad for States, 
that will now find it much harder to protect water quality and manage 
the waters within their boundaries.
  Maybe that is why the bill is opposed by States, Tribes, the outdoor 
recreation industry, and more than 150 national and local environmental 
organizations.
  Opponents of the bill include the Western Governors' Association, the 
Southern States Energy Board, the National Congress of American 
Indians, the Environmental Council of the States, the Outdoor Alliance, 
the National Wildlife Federation, the American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, 
and the League of Conservation Voters, among many others.
  Perhaps the ultimate condemnation comes from FERC, which, in 
testimony before our committee, disputed claims that the bill would 
streamline the licensing process, noting that the legislation ``could 
increase the complexity and length of the licensing process.''
  Hydropower facilities are using our most precious resource: water.
  I don't think it is too much to ask that facilities awarded long-term 
licenses and free fuel share the rivers with others.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Griffith), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, hydropower is an essential component of 
an all-of-the-above energy strategy.
  We have a tremendous opportunity to expand renewable hydropower 
production. However, without some much-needed licensing improvements, 
we risk losing investment opportunities in new hydropower 
infrastructure. In particular, closed-loop pumped storage hydro 
projects offer the opportunity to store energy for use when it is 
needed.
  I have introduced separate legislation, H.R. 2880, with the goal of 
making the review process of these projects as efficient as possible. 
Both H.R. 3043 and H.R. 2880 will allow the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to impose licensing conditions only as necessary to protect 
public safety, or that are reasonable, economically feasible, and 
essential to protect fish and wildlife resources.
  I am excited about the possibility some are exploring to build these 
facilities in abandoned mine lands. This renewable energy solution for 
power could be a real benefit to our coal field regions in central 
Appalachia in the form of jobs, economic development, and energy 
security. I am proud of what we are doing here in an effort to make 
this happen.
  Industry and labor groups alike support H.R. 3043 because a modern 
regulatory framework for hydro is good for jobs and good for consumers. 
The following groups have written in support of the bill:
  The American Council on Renewable Energy, the International 
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the International Brotherhood of 
Electrical Workers, the International Federation of Professional and 
Technical Engineers, and many others.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the letter containing the names 
of supporters.

                                                 November 6, 2017.
       The undersigned groups are writing to express strong 
     support for H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization 
     Act of 2017, and to request your vote as it is considered on 
     the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives this week.
       Hydropower is America's single largest provider of 
     renewable electricity, making up almost one-half of all 
     generation from renewable resources. Given that hydropower is 
     an important source of domestic, emissions-free, flexible 
     power needed to ensure consistent and reliable electric 
     service, we must

[[Page H8618]]

     look to preserve and protect our existing hydropower system 
     and promote new expansion opportunities.
       H.R. 3043 provides a framework that adds accountability and 
     transparency, eliminates inefficiencies and redundancies, and 
     unlocks innovation and advancements in technology and 
     operations, while protecting environmental values, public 
     participation, and all existing authorities of federal and 
     state decision-makers in the licensing process
       The current regulatory environment is placing hydropower at 
     risk. The licensing process can result in both new and 
     existing projects taking up to ten years or longer to receive 
     their approvals. This not only creates uncertainty for 
     project owners and developers alike, but burdens electricity 
     customers with additional unnecessary costs and only delays 
     important environmental measures that the industry, resource 
     agencies, and the environmental community agreed upon during 
     the licensing process and want to see deployed.
       Additionally, the fleet of almost 2,200 hydropower projects 
     across the country supports approximately 118,000 ongoing 
     full-time equivalent jobs in operations and maintenance and 
     25,000 jobs in construction and upgrades. By maintaining our 
     existing fleet and supporting growth in the sector, the 
     hydropower industry could support close to 200,000 jobs. 
     Further local economic development in other industries is 
     also spurred due to access to affordable electricity from 
     hydropower projects. However, we will not realize the full 
     measure of these jobs and economic opportunities without 
     improvements to the licensing process.
       We believe H.R. 3043 is a moderate proposal developed with 
     bipartisan input and, as such, deserves strong support by 
     both Republicans and Democrats. Please contact any of our 
     organizations for additional information or assistance on 
     this bill.
           Sincerely,
         The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), 
           American Public Power Association (APPA), Business 
           Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE), Edison Electric 
           Institute (EEI), International Brotherhood of 
           Boilermakers (Boilermakers), International Brotherhood 
           of Electrical Workers (IBEW), International Federation 
           of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), Large 
           Public Power Council (LPPC), Laborers' International 
           Union of North America (LiUNA), National Electrical 
           Contractors Association (NECA), National Hydropower 
           Association (NHA), National Rural Electric Cooperative 
           Association (NRECA), North America Building Trades 
           Council (NABTU), United Brotherhood of Carpenters and 
           Joiners of America (Carpenters).

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining 
on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). The gentleman from 
Michigan has 17 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois has 
16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a very important member of the committee.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Hydropower Policy 
Modernization Act of 2017 because it weakens States' rights to protect 
their own water quality.
  Under the Clean Water Act, States have the right to protect their 
water by setting water quality conditions on hydropower licenses. This 
bill would constrain that authority, forcing States to issue rushed 
conditions using incomplete scientific data, or surrender their 
authority to issue conditions at all. In short, the choice that States 
have to protect their water and their people is to either do it poorly 
or not at all.
  We had a fix for this. We had an amendment to H.R. 3043, but it was 
not made in order. It would have preserved the critical role States 
play in protecting local water quality by exempting their rights under 
the Clean Water Act from the bill.
  For Marylanders in my State, this issue is bipartisan and hits close 
to home. FERC is currently considering the relicensing of a 
hydroelectric dam on the Susquehanna River. The Susquehanna provides 50 
percent of all of the freshwater that reaches the Chesapeake Bay, 
making it a critical driver of the Bay's water quality. Any new FERC 
license will need to have conditions that protect the Susquehanna and 
the Bay from the sediment and nutrient pollution built up behind the 
dam. That is why even Republicans in our State, the secretary of the 
environment, and secretary of natural resources sent a letter urging 
Congress to strike the provisions in this bill that would limit 
Maryland's ability to set water quality conditions.
  I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
in this body, who so often remark on the importance of protecting 
States' rights from usurping Federal agencies, have refused to protect 
States by bringing this critical amendment to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose H.R. 3043.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chair of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to draw attention, first of all, to 
page 17, line 23, of the bill because we have heard from those who 
oppose it that somehow this could adversely undermine the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the 
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, et cetera.
  Line 23 makes it very clear, ``No effect on other laws. Nothing in 
this section shall be construed to affect any requirement of'' these 
underlying and very important laws that protect our environment.
  So I just want to make sure that is in the Record. This is the 
current text of the bill we are voting on today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy 
Modernization Act.
  Hydropower plays an enormously important role in electricity 
generation across the country, and especially in my home State of 
Oregon. Hydropower generates 43 percent of electricity in my State. It 
is dependable base load, it is carbon-free, it is renewable, and it is 
very important to our region.
  Nationally, hydropower is one of the largest sources of renewable 
electricity generation. A recent Department of Energy report said that 
U.S. hydropower could grow by almost 50 percent by the year 2050.
  Thankfully, my good friend from Washington, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 
introduced this legislation because, as these entities go to relicense, 
sometimes it costs tens of millions of dollars just to get a renewal of 
a government permit to continue to do what you have been doing, and it 
can take 7 to 10 years to work through the process. By the way, all 
those costs generally--guess who pays for them? The ratepayers. People 
paying their electricity bill end up paying for all this incredible, 
out-of-control review and regulation.
  As the committee worked on this legislation under the able hand of 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, Mr. Upton, we solicited 
feedback from all stakeholders as we crafted this. We made a number of 
changes to address the concerns. We had hearings, and we had lots of 
other individual discussions and roundtables. We added new provisions 
to ensure that States and Tribes are consulted early in the licensing 
process to identify and resolve issues of concern.
  We also made sure that State and local governments could recoup the 
cost of reviewing applications and conducting studies. We even added a 
strong savings clause that clarifies our intent that nothing in the 
bill shall be construed to effect any requirement of the Clean Water 
Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other environment laws.
  As a result, we find ourselves here today with bipartisan support for 
this legislation and the support of the American Council on Renewable 
Energy, the American Public Power Association, the Business Council for 
Sustainable Energy, Edison Electric Institute, the International 
Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Electrical Workers, the International 
Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, the Large Public 
Power Council, Laborers' International Union of North America, the 
National Electrical Contractors Association, the National Hydropower 
Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, North 
America Building Trades Council, and the United Brotherhood of 
Carpenters and Joiners of America--those most intricately involved in 
making sure we have reliable and clean base load hydropower.
  Support this modernization legislation. Mr. Chairman, it is 
bipartisan, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko).

[[Page H8619]]

  

  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of our 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois, for his leadership and hard 
work on the subcommittee and for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express a few concerns with the bill before 
us. But first, let me say that I support hydropower and believe it must 
be maintained as an important part of our generation mix.
  Hydro is an excellent source of reliable, zero-emissions electricity 
generation. In order to address climate change and increase clean 
energy production, it is, indeed, critical that we make licensing and 
relicensing of these projects feasible.
  This is an important issue for my home State of New York. Hydropower 
resources produce 19 percent of New York State's total electricity 
generation in 2016. The average age of New York's hydropower facilities 
is over 50 years, and many projects are expected to go through the 
relicensing process in the next 15 years.
  I want to reiterate that Members on both sides of the aisle want to 
see these projects developed within reasonable timelines. I understand 
the current challenges in relicensing and the desire to bring greater 
certainty to the process. However, I do not think the bill before us 
would address those concerns in a balanced approach, which takes into 
account the legitimate concerns of State and Tribal governments and 
environmental stakeholders.
  The process that produced this bill was flawed from the beginning. 
The committee failed to hold a hearing to understand the concerns of 
State and Tribal governments or Federal resource agencies. These 
entities would be those whose authorities may be limited by FERC under 
this legislation.
  The bill enables FERC to set a schedule that may limit State and 
Tribal governments and other Federal agencies from having the time to 
fully consider and, yes, set conditions on license applications.
  An enforceable FERC schedule, outside the control of these agencies, 
may create a perverse incentive for applicants to slow-walk their 
responses to information requests from other agencies and State 
governments, effectively running out the clock and preventing 
conditions from being required on the application.
  Our water resources are precious. Different stakeholders have a 
variety of expectations and demands--power generation, recreation, 
wildlife and fish habitat, drinking water, and agriculture. Managing 
these resources effectively is about balancing those often-competing 
interests.
  The Democratic alternative addresses the schedule concern by allowing 
stakeholders to be involved in the creation of the schedule-setting 
process. But I also believe FERC has some of the necessary tools 
already in the underutilized Integrated Licensing Process which 
encourages all stakeholders to engage in a robust, information sharing 
process up front.
  Now, finally, to set the record straight, I listened intently as the 
gentlewoman from Washington State, the sponsor of the bill, spoke to 
the fact that the Standing Rock Sioux were, indeed, represented at 
hearings, that they had a witness at the FERC hearings. They were there 
to discuss pipelines and not hydro.
  Mr. Chairman, so I am opposing this bill today, but I hope we can 
move forward with a truly bipartisan process in the future to improve 
the licensing process while respecting the needs of all stakeholders.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who is a member of the Natural Resources and 
Armed Services Committees, to speak in support of the bill.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3043, the 
Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, sponsored by the 
gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
  This bill simply intends to bring hydropower permitting into the 21st 
century by improving efficiency, accountability, and transparency 
within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and also reducing 
Federal duplication.
  Hydropower is a reliable and emissions-free source of electricity 
that accounts for much of the Nation's total renewable electricity 
generation. In fact, only 3 percent of existing dams in the United 
States produce hydroelectricity. This illustrates the vast opportunity 
in this country for new hydropower generation.
  In the Water, Power, and Oceans Subcommittee of the Natural Resources 
Committee which I chair, we have spent much of this Congress crafting 
and advancing legislation to capitalize on these opportunities. 
Legislation such as my bill, the Bureau of Reclamation Pumped Storage 
Hydropower Development Act, is intended to promote pumped storage 
hydropower development at existing reclamation facilities. Mrs. 
McMorris Rodgers' bill in front of us today goes hand in hand with 
those efforts.
  Even our friends across the aisle agree with our efforts to promote 
hydropower development. At a May oversight hearing in my subcommittee 
on the challenges facing hydropower, committee Democrats helpfully 
suggested that we should find ways to retrofit all nonpowered Federal 
facilities with hydropower. We should all agree that improving the 
permitting and approval process for these facilities would be the 
easiest way to achieve this goal.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers again 
for sponsoring this critical piece of legislation. She has been and 
continues to be a champion supporter of hydropower. Just last month, my 
subcommittee considered another bill authored by the Congresswoman--
H.R. 3144--that looks to provide certainty and reliability to several 
Federal hydropower projects producing electricity in the Federal 
Columbia River Power System that have been mired in third-party 
litigation, questionable and expensive judicial edicts, and onerous 
Federal regulations.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, February 17, Oroville Dam, California, a 
30-foot potential tsunami coming down on the cities of Oroville and 
further down the river in Marysville and Yuba City. 200,000 people 
evacuated. Thankfully, the rain did stop and the levee, or the 
spillway, that had failed did not become a catastrophe.
  FERC is now in the process of relicensing the dam, and a complete 
environmental impact statement is now more than a decade over, 2007. 
However, there have been very significant changes like, you know, maybe 
the dam could collapse, or the spillway. We know that the river has 
been further congested with the material that came from the broken 
spillway.
  There are serious negative environmental impacts that have resulted 
from the damaged spillway. The river can't carry the same capacity. It 
has been silted.
  Bottom line, it is for these reasons that a failure by FERC to 
require a supplemental environmental impact statement would be a 
serious abdication of FERC's responsibility.
  Unfortunately, a proposed amendment by Mr. LaMalfa, my good 
Republican colleague, and me to require such a supplemental impact 
statement was not included in the bill. Nevertheless, my message to 
FERC is clear: you must do this so that there is full protection and 
full understanding of the potential impact that this dam will have on 
communities, our water supply, as well as flooding.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3043 
from Representative McMorris Rodgers, the Hydropower Policy 
Modernization Act of 2017.
  For centuries, Western States have fought over scarce water supplies. 
We even have an expression in the West that says: Whiskey is for 
drinking and water is for fighting over.
  Water scarcity in the West led our visionary forefathers to build 
Federal water storage projects throughout the West to provide water, 
hydropower, recreation, flood control, and environmental benefits while 
adhering to States' water rights.
  These were nonpartisan endeavors, as evidenced by President John F. 
Kennedy dedicating the San Luis Dam in California. While the Central 
Arizona Project came after President Kennedy,

[[Page H8620]]

it continues to bring prosperity to Arizona's cities, Tribal 
communities, ranches, and farms almost 50 years after its inception.

  The Glen Canyon Dam and other projects affiliated with the Colorado 
River Storage Project provided the backbone of a regional economy that 
has produced year-round and emissions-free hydropower.
  H.R. 3043 streamlines the permitting process and encourages the 
expansion of hydropower generation by establishing a single lead 
coordinating agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, in 
order to facilitate in a timelier manner all hydropower authorizations, 
approvals, and requirements mandated by Federal law.
  This bill will also dramatically decrease costs to relicense non-
Federal dams, a huge win for the West.
  Presently, FERC exercises jurisdiction over 1,600 non-Federal 
hydropower projects at more than 2,500 dams under the Federal Power 
Act.
  According to FERC, the relicensing workload is increasing 
dramatically. Between FY 2017 and FY 2030, roughly 480 projects 
amounting to 45 percent of FERC-licensed projects will begin the 
relicensing process.
  Rural co-ops, power companies, and other stakeholders in the West 
need a clear process without the bureaucracy. Let's get bureaucracy out 
of the way and pass H.R. 3043 so we have a clear process moving forward 
for pursuing worthwhile hydropower projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for the 
sponsorship of this much-needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote in support of this commonsense bill.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ruiz).
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3043, the 
Hydropower Policy Modernization Act, which undercuts Federal-Tribal 
treaty and trust obligations. In fact, parts of this bill specifically 
eliminate protection for Tribes and ensure that dams and other 
hydropower projects do not harm Tribal fisheries, livelihoods, or 
violate treaty rights.
  This is unacceptable. Not only does this undermine Tribal 
sovereignty, but it flies in the face of our moral and legal obligation 
to protect Tribal treaties, land, and resources under the Federal trust 
responsibility.
  I am especially disappointed that the majority had the opportunity to 
fix this issue, yet walked away from the table. Even though I brought 
this up as an issue to fix in committee, the majority rushed this bill 
through committee for a House vote without adequately addressing Tribal 
concerns.

                              {time}  1430

  Furthermore, the majority refused to make in order my amendment, 
meaning they denied the fix to empower Tribes to set reasonable 
conditions on hydropower projects to protect their reservation and 
resources. In fact, the letter sent by Democratic Ranking Member 
Pallone requesting a hearing to allow Tribal input and Tribal 
participation on this particular issue was left unanswered.
  So I say this to those Republicans who do support Tribal sovereignty 
and self-determination: You can still fix this issue and improve the 
Federal hydropower licensing process, simultaneously, while still 
protecting Tribal treaty rights, by supporting the Rush substitute 
amendment.
  Join the Democratic Rush amendment that includes language to empower 
Tribal governments to determine when a project may harm their Tribe. 
Without this fix, this bill undermines Tribal governments and harms 
resources and lands, therefore, putting energy profits above Tribal 
treaty rights.
  I urge my colleagues to take a stand. Do not ignore your 
responsibility to Tribes when it matters most. Support the Democratic 
substitute amendment sponsored by Representative Rush that preserves 
the responsibility of the Federal Government to honor treaty 
obligations and protect Tribal resources.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Denham).
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower 
Modernization Act of 2017.
  In my area of California's Central Valley, we have the Turlock and 
Modesto Irrigation Districts. They have been fighting for over 8 years 
to relicense the Don Pedro hydropower facility. This is on the Tuolumne 
River. This is where we get our drinking water for the families in our 
communities; this is where we get our water for irrigation for our 
farms; yet our ratepayers have been spending money, for over 8 years, 
just on the relicensing process.
  They have had engineers and scientists who have done 35 studies. They 
have done the modeling for FERC to show all the different impacts that 
will be had here. In the process, they have spent $30 million already. 
They planned to spend over $50 million.
  We are not going to have one drop of extra water storage. This is not 
going to improve the quality of the water that the people in my 
district are going to drink. No new water, no better quality--it is 
still going to see the same conditions for our fish, the same 
conditions for our streambeds.
  After $50 million and over 8 years, all we will have done is 
completed over 35 studies to continue to look, continue to go through 
red tape, and the people in my district will still have a water 
shortage. We can do things much better.
  Close to me, we also have the Merced Irrigation District, as well. 
They have been working over a decade in relicensing the Exchequer 
Hydroelectric project. Over $20 million has been spent. Again, the same 
type of scenario: for farmers and families, no new improved water 
quality, no new water storage, just a decade and $20 million for many, 
many studies that are not improving our process.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from California an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, this legislation is not going to solve all of 
our problems for California's Central Valley, but it will help us with 
the challenges we are facing with relicensing.
  We can do things better, we can do them more efficiently, and we can 
actually bring water delivery to the people who need it most. It starts 
with FERC relicensing and changing the process to a much more 
transparent and efficient process. This bill deserves a ``yes'' vote, 
which will help us through that process.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy 
Modernization Act.
  Mr. Chair, I believe, and I think others do as well who have had 
experiences within their constituencies, within their congressional 
districts, that the hydro relicensing process is plainly broken, plain 
and simple.
  Let me give you a couple of real-life examples of why this 
legislation is needed, and why it is needed now. They both provide 
energy in my district for the people in the San Joaquin Valley, for 
households, for farmers, and for people in the valley, and they are the 
same two examples that Congressman Denham spoke of a moment ago.
  The Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts have worked through the 
licensing process in good faith for more than 8 years, and they have 
spent over $30 million to renew the license for Don Pedro Dam, a 
facility that has been in operation for almost 40 years. The districts 
estimate that, when they are finished with this process, they will have 
spent almost $50 million.
  Meanwhile, the Merced Irrigation District, my constituency, has spent 
over 10 years and $20 million to relicense the Exchequer Hydroelectric 
project. This process is still not finished. This facility has been in 
operation for over 60 years.
  Since these are public agencies, these costs are passed on to the 
ratepayers in mostly small, rural communities that Congressman Denham 
and I represent. It raises their electric costs. It makes no sense.
  This is about maintaining clean, renewable energy. This is about 
reducing the regulatory burden and not passing these costs on to the 
ratepayers. Given the experience that I have just given you, my 
constituents believe that, frankly, this bill could go further in 
removing inefficiencies in the relicensing

[[Page H8621]]

process, but it is a good first step. It is a work in progress. It is 
certainly not perfect.
  I support the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining 
on both sides.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 5 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this commonsense hydropower 
streamlining process for modernizing the way we permit in order to 
bolster the process for over 400 existing hydropower projects in the 
United States. It is very important in my area as well.
  Hydropower delivers clean, reliable, and renewable power 24 hours a 
day, unlike other renewable power sources which fluctuate with time of 
day, weather, sun or wind, or lack thereof.
  California has a long history of hydropower generation. In 2014, 
California, alone, produced 14,000 megawatts of electricity from 
hydropower facilities--again, clean, renewable, and reliable. You turn 
on the switch, hydroelectric power.
  My district in northern California is home to two of the largest 
facilities in the country: Oroville Dam and Shasta Dam. Each of these 
facilities delivers cost-efficient power, provides flood control, and 
generates significant local economic activity for the community via 
stored water and recreation.
  With local input, which is very important, we need to address the 
streamlining of this process and expanding renewable hydropower 
production in this country to pave the way for new jobs and affordable 
power to consumers everywhere.
  Relicensing permits ought not be a wish list for every special 
interest, but, indeed, on measures of the power that can be generated.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time, and I wholeheartedly support and 
urge this House to support H.R. 3043.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Gianforte).
  Mr. GIANFORTE. Mr. Chair, I rise to join my colleagues in supporting 
the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act.
  Nearly one-third of the electricity generated in Montana comes from 
hydropower. The Libby, Hungry Horse, and Noxon Rapids projects each 
have the generating capacity of more than 400 megawatts. There are 
dozens more smaller hydropower facilities in Montana, from Thompson 
Falls to those around Great Falls, to Tiber and Fort Peck and 
Yellowtail.
  This legislation will ensure that existing projects will have timely 
relicensing and enhance consultation between Federal, State, local 
agencies, and our Indian Tribes. It will also help provide certainty 
for new projects.
  I know, in my home State, there are proposals to electrify existing 
flood control and irrigation dams, like the Gibson Dam, that face 
ongoing licensing issues. I have introduced legislation to address that 
particular one.
  This bill is a step in the right direction for hydropower nationwide, 
and I am happy to support it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from Confederated Tribes 
and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Snoqualmie 
Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, and a copy of the resolution passed in 
October 2017 by The National Congress of American Indians opposing the 
proposed amendments to the Federal Power Act.

                                           Confederated Tribes and


                                   Bands of the Yakama Nation,

                                  Toppenish, WA, November 7, 2017.
     Re Hydro legislation still bad for Indian Tribes, States and 
         Users of Public Waterways.

     Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker,
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader,
     Honorable Members of the House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi and Honorable 
     Members of Congress: Yesterday, when the Rules Committee 
     discussed HR 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 
     2017, a number of members of the committee including Chairman 
     Sessions, Congressman Cole, Congressman Newhouse, Congressman 
     McGovern, Congresswoman Cheney as well as the Chairman Walden 
     and Ranking Subcommittee Member Rush (who were testifying), 
     all stressed the importance of ensuring that Indian tribes 
     have their treaty rights and natural resources protected by 
     any actions of the Congress relative to hydropower reform. We 
     greatly appreciate the concerns of these members and the 
     amount of time they spent discussing tribes and dam 
     relicensing. I think many of them were aware of the degree to 
     which the placement of dams has negatively affected a number 
     of reservations, flooding some and damaging salmon runs at 
     others. While there was universal agreement that the rights 
     of tribes and states must be protected, there was not 
     agreement on whether HR 3043 accomplishes that laudable 
     intent. I must tell you that the bill does not do so.
       First understand what the Federal Power Act (FPA) now says.
       Under provisions that have been in effect for decades, 
     state governments, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, are able 
     to set water quality standards at hydro dams. Such conditions 
     are mandatory. Allowing states to establish water quality 
     standards, a key aspect of Federalism that many in Congress 
     have always fought for, was a lynchpin of the grand bargain 
     reached when the Clean Water Act became law. While Federalism 
     has not really benefitted Indian tribes, we are surprised 
     that the Congress would weaken the ability of states to 
     protect the public in this fashion. We hope you will read 
     what many states have said in letters to the Committee, i.e., 
     HR 3043 weakens their ability to ensure their standards are 
     met during the licensing process. Letters of this nature have 
     come from entities as varied as the Western Governors 
     Association and the Southern States Energy Board.
       Also under the longstanding language of Section 4(e) of the 
     FPA, Cabinet Secretaries with authority over ``federal 
     reservations'' are directed to ensure that a proposed hydro 
     project doesn't negatively affect a reservation or interfere 
     with its congressionally designated use. These include all 
     lands and marine reserves in the Federal estate from Indian 
     reservations, to National Forests to Wildlife Refuges. 
     Section 18 of the FPA deals with the establishment or 
     modification of fishways to ensure fish can pass over these 
     dams. The Secretaries of Commerce (for NMFS) and Interior 
     (for USFWS) deal with fish passage and the Secretaries of 
     Interior (for BIA, BLM, USFWS and NPS) and Agriculture (for 
     USFS) deal with protecting federal reservations. They have 
     the authority to propose mandatory conditions on hydro dams 
     to ensure their operation protects these federal resources 
     that belong to all Americans.
       The legislation weakens the conditioning authority for 
     protecting state water quality, for fishways and for federal 
     reservations by transferring significant decision-making 
     authority to FERC. Under the bill, FERC and the license 
     applicant can challenge the necessity of a condition and have 
     that challenge heard via a trial-type hearing only at FERC 
     before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at that agency. 
     Under present law, decisions such as these are heard by ALJs 
     in the agency making the recommendation, where the expertise 
     resides. This provision in the bill is legislating forum 
     shopping and directing that the decision be made before an 
     entity whose expertise is in areas such as energy markets and 
     safety at power plants. FERC and its ALJs have no expertise 
     relative to Indian treaty rights or the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act among many bedrock laws and FERC testified 
     before the Committee that they do not want to be given this 
     newfound authority. While having trial-type hearings at FERC 
     and authorizing FERC to set all manner of schedules in the 
     permitting process will certainly create countless billable 
     hours for attorneys representing license applicants, it will 
     do nothing to protect the interest of Indian tribes or the 
     public at large, and as stated above, is directly contrary to 
     state authority under the Clean Water Act and Secretarial 
     authority now found in the Federal Power Act.
       Yesterday we heard that this process will expedite 
     licensing but if that is the goal then wouldn't it make sense 
     to determine when an application for a license is complete? 
     Tribes repeatedly asked the hydropower industry to clarify 
     that matter in the bill but they refused. Why? Existing 
     hydropower dam licenses were issued decades ago before any 
     environmental statutes were on the books and many of those 
     dams are fish killers. Under the present law, when a license 
     expires the operator can automatically get annual extensions 
     allowing it to operate under 30-50 year old standards. These 
     extensions can go on for year after year with the operator 
     not having to spend any money to mitigate the damage to fish 
     or other resources. This is more than ironic considering that 
     the hydropower industry is telling Congress that they need 
     the legislation to ensure certainty and time frames in the 
     relicensing process. Additionally, the bill is drafted in 
     such a fashion that FERC can set schedules that are so 
     abbreviated that Tribes, Cabinet Secretaries or States who 
     wish to comment and perhaps undertake a fishery study when 
     necessary may not have the time to properly prepare suggested 
     or mandatory operating conditions. It is noteworthy that FERC 
     told the Committee that they don't see the legislation 
     actually streamlining the application process. Also, we 
     checked today and could find no tribes in support of this 
     bill.

[[Page H8622]]

       We believe the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute 
     (AINS) incorporates much of what the majority proposed in HR 
     3043 while incorporating many changes that are reflective of 
     the input that the Committee received from states and tribes 
     who took the time to relay views and concerns to the 
     Committee. A key part is the requirement for a negotiated 
     rule-making to improve and expedite the hydro licensing 
     process by bringing in states, local governments, 
     stakeholders and tribes to FERC to develop a process that 
     will enable FERC to make decisions on license applications 
     within a maximum of three years. We urge you to vote for the 
     AINS. Without such changes it is highly unlikely that the 
     bill will make it through the Senate. Thank you for 
     considering our views.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jode L. Goudy,
     Tribal Council Chairman.
                                  ____



                                    Puyallup Tribe of Indians,

                                       Tacoma, WA, August 9, 2017.
     Re Hydropower Policy Modernization Act, H.R. 3043.

     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank Pallone,
     Ranking Member, Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone: I write to 
     express the Puyallup Tribe's strong objections to the 
     amendments to the Federal Power Act that are now being 
     considered as part of the Hydropower Policy Modernization 
     Act, H.R. 3043.
       First, the bill would give FERC, an agency with no relevant 
     experience or capacity, the responsibility for determining 
     the scope of environmental review that Interior, Commerce, 
     States and even Tribes should undertake.
       Second, H.R. 3043 would upset the careful balance that now 
     exists under federal law and let FERC set the timeline on 
     case-by-case basis for agencies to impose mandatory 4(e) 
     conditions and other requirements, including Section 18 
     (fishways) and Clean Water Act permits. The consideration of 
     hydropower licenses is a complicated process that must 
     consider the impact of a project on watersheds and numerous 
     species of fish and wildlife before giving operators 50-year 
     licenses to take power from these ecosystems. It takes time 
     to do the necessary studies to determine what types of 
     conditions can best protect these watersheds, including 
     sensitive fisheries habitat, and the resources not only for 
     Treaty-reserved Indian Reservations and resources, but also 
     for the multiple users of these watersheds, including 
     recreation, commercial fishing, and agriculture. If FERC's 
     past actions are any guidance, FERC will impose unrealistic 
     deadlines that the agencies will not meet. This bill will 
     return the Nation back to a time when hydropower projects 
     flooded Indian lands, extirpated entire species of salmon, 
     and destroyed critical cultural resources.
       Third, this bill would allow FERC for the first time to 
     make a determination that a mandatory condition is 
     inconsistent with the Federal Power Act. This would undermine 
     the Supreme Court's decision in Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. 
     La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765 (1984), which 
     held that the FPA provides no authority to FERC to impose 
     restrictions on the 4(e) conditions submitted by the 
     Secretary of Interior. The current process affords the 
     hydropower industry ample opportunity to consider and respond 
     to potential Sections 4(e), 18, and Clean Water Act 
     conditions. Hydropower licensees can (and in fact do) 
     actively participate in the process by which these conditions 
     are deliberated and set. And while these conditions are not 
     subject to modification by FERC, they are subject to judicial 
     review, and FERC is free to express its disagreement with the 
     conditions, so that FERC's views can also be considered by 
     the courts.
       Finally, the bill requires the Agency imposing these 
     conditions to prepare a written statement that the Agency 
     gave equal consideration to power generating interests in 
     issuing its 4(e) conditions. Currently, if a hydroelectric 
     project is located on federal lands, including Indian 
     Reservations, the only consideration the Secretary has is to 
     impose conditions that protect those reservations. There is 
     no consideration of other interests. This has been the law 
     for almost ninety years.
       We urge you to continue to work with Tribes and other 
     stakeholders to improve the hydropower licensing process for 
     all interests and not simply for the industry.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Bill Sterud,

                                                         Chairman,
     Puyallup Tribal Council.
                                  ____



                                             Snoqualmie Tribe,

                                                    June 21, 2017.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone: On behalf 
     of the Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, we write to express our 
     continued concerns regarding proposed changes to the federal 
     hydropower licensing approval process. The proposed changes 
     would abrogate the federal government's overarching trust 
     responsibility to Indian tribes and its ability to uphold 
     tribal treaty rights. Our Tribe is particularly concerned 
     that current legislative reform efforts to consolidate 
     hydropower approval authority within the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) unduly favor the interests of 
     private industry at the expense of tribes, local and state 
     governments, natural resources, and local citizens. As our 
     trustee, we urge you to ensure that any hydropower 
     legislation passed out of the Committee will only strengthen 
     Tribes' ability to give input on hydropower licensing 
     decisions at hydropower facilities.
       The Snoqualmie Tribe is adamantly opposed to legislative 
     reforms efforts that seek to undermine current mechanisms 
     that ensure adequate consideration of the effects of a 
     proposed hydropower project on affected Indian lands and 
     natural resources. In particular, the proposed changes to 
     Sec. Sec. 4(e) and 18 of the Federal Power Act and Sec. 401 
     of the Clean Water Act would enable FERC to disregard 
     mandatory conditions imposed by federal and state land 
     management agencies. Disregarding the established expertise 
     and mission of such agencies to evaluate and mitigate impacts 
     to Indian lands and natural resources directly undermines the 
     federal government's ability to fulfill its trust and treaty 
     obligations to Indian tribes. For example, Sec. Sec. 34 and 
     37 of the draft legislation would allow FERC to effectively 
     waive conditions necessary to implement the Northwest Power 
     Act, Endangered Species Act, or the Clean Water Act if a 
     state, tribe, or federal agency cannot meet a FERC deadline. 
     Additionally, the proposed schedule of 120 days to complete 
     all ``federal authorizations'' is unworkable in practice and 
     will inevitably lead to such waivers.
       It is imperative that any legislative reforms to the 
     hydropower permitting process adequately consider and 
     mitigate the impacts to Indian lands, Tribal sacred sites, 
     and natural resources. Historically, American Indian tribes 
     have experienced disproportionate negative effects when dams, 
     including hydroelectric projects, were approved without 
     adequate tribal consultation or consideration of the effects 
     on surrounding natural resources. For example, in the past, 
     hydropower dams have flooded Indian reservations resulting in 
     the permanent loss or damage to Tribal lands and sacred 
     sites.
       Given the Snoqualmie Tribe is a signatory to the Treaty of 
     Point Elliot of 1855, the federal government has an 
     enforceable fiduciary obligation to act as trustee on the 
     Tribe's behalf. Of critical significance to our people is 
     Snoqualmie Falls, a 268-foot waterfall that is the place of 
     our creation history and our most sacred site. The Falls are 
     an essential part of our cultural and religious practices 
     where we pray, conduct sacred ceremonies, and traditionally 
     buried our dead. Our Tribe is all too familiar with the 
     negative impacts of inadequately planned hydroelectric dams 
     on our culture, lands, and very way of life. For more than 
     100 years, Snoqualmie Falls has been hampered by the 
     diversion of its water for a hydroelectric dam that 
     significantly reduces the strong flow of water and the mists 
     coming from the Falls. Without these, our religious practices 
     are severely limited and we cannot fully engage in our 
     cultural heritage.
       The current draft hydropower reform legislation does not 
     appropriately balance various stakeholders' interests and, 
     instead, prioritizes private industry interests above the 
     federal governments' responsibility as trustee to Tribes. 
     Accordingly, we urge the Committee to ensure that legislation 
     passed out of the Committee strengthens Tribes' ability to 
     give input on hydropower decisions.
       Thank you for your consideration on this very important 
     religious and cultural issue to our Tribe. We look forward to 
     working with the Committee to ensure any hydropower reform 
     efforts are suitably tailored to uphold the federal 
     government's trust responsibility to Indian peoples and 
     protect tribal treaty rights.
           Sincerely,
     Snoqualmie Tribal Council.
                                  ____



                                       Skokomish Indian Tribe,

                              Skokomish Nation, WA, June 21, 2017.
     Re Proposed Amendments to the Federal Power Act.

     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone: I write to 
     again express the Skokomish Tribe's strong objections to the 
     amendments to the Federal Power Act that are now being 
     considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
       If this bill is enacted as approved by the Committee, it 
     would represent one of the most significant roll backs of the 
     federal trust responsibility since termination. For more than 
     ninety years the Federal Power Act directed Interior and 
     other land management agencies to impose conditions on 
     hydroelectric projects to protect federal lands including 
     federal Indian Reservations and Treaty protected resources. 
     However, in the first forty years, the federal land 
     management agencies largely ignored this responsibility. As a 
     consequence of this abdication to the Skokomish Tribe, our 
     Reservation and our resources paid a very high price.

[[Page H8623]]

       Our story is but one of many across Indian country. In the 
     1920s Tacoma City and Light received a license for the 
     Cushman Dam on the North Fork of the Skokomish River. The 
     entire flow of the North Fork of the Skokomish River was 
     diverted from its channel and sent to a power house on Hood 
     Canal (a bay of the Puget Sound). The dewatering of the North 
     Fork completely destroyed a premier salmon run, with grievous 
     economic and cultural consequences for the Tribe. See 
     generally, City of Tacoma v. FERC, 460 F.3d 53, 62 (D.C. Cir. 
     2006); Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, 410 F.3d 506, 
     509-510 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc revised). In terms of direct 
     impact on the Skokomish Reservation itself, the dewatering of 
     the North Fork resulted in an approximately 40% reduction in 
     the flow of the Skokomish River mainstem. This change in the 
     hydrology of the Skokomish River caused one-third of the 
     Reservation to be flooded. Skokomish v. United States, 410 
     F.3d at 509-510, see also id. at 521 (dissenting opinion of 
     Judge Graber). In short, this project almost completely 
     destroyed the Reservation and the fishery for which the 
     Reservation was established.
       The original Cushman Dam license expired in 1974 and the 
     Skokomish Tribe spent significant time, energy and resources 
     to ensure that the United States would not once again 
     abdicate its responsibility to the Tribe and sought 
     conditions on the new license that would protect the 
     Skokomish Reservation. At every turn Tacoma and the 
     hydropower industry fought the Tribe. However, in 2006, the 
     Skokomish Tribe won the right for the Department of the 
     Interior to exercise its Federal Power Act 4(e) conditioning 
     authority to protect the Reservation and the Tribe. City of 
     Tacoma, Washington v. F.E.R.C., 460 F.3d 53, 59 (D.C. Cir. 
     2006) (``Cushman'')
       As a result of this decision, the Cushman project is now 
     being operated in a manner meant to reverse the more than 80 
     years of damage to the Skokomish Reservation. These changes 
     are slow but, over time, there will be improvements to the 
     flow of the mainstem and flooding will lessen. Reservation 
     lands that are waterlogged and useless will be restored and 
     productive for the Tribe and our members again.
       The bill now before the Committee would essentially reverse 
     the decision that my Tribe fought so hard for, and will let 
     FERC set the timeline for 4(e) mandatory conditions and other 
     conditions, including Section 18 (fishways) and Clean Water 
     Act Permits. The bill goes on to require the agency to 
     imposing these conditions to give equal weight to power 
     generating interests. Again, this would significantly 
     undermine the federal trust responsibility to my tribe and 
     others. If a hydroelectric project is located on Tribal 
     lands, then the only consideration the Secretary has is to 
     impose conditions that protect that Reservation. There is no 
     balance of other interests. This has been the law for almost 
     ninety years. The Tribe is at a loss for why Congress would 
     want to change this now.
       Furthermore, the bill before the Committee seeks to have 
     FERC, an agency with no experience or capacity, the 
     responsibility for determining the scope of environmental 
     review that Interior, Commerce, States and even Tribes should 
     take.
       A change to the Federal Power Act is not needed. First, 
     sections 4(e), 18 and the other related provisions of the 
     Federal Power Act, establish proper checks and balances in 
     the licensing process. While FERC is examining a broad range 
     of issues in connection with the license application or 
     renewal, the Interior Secretary can bring to bear Interior's 
     knowledge and expertise regarding the needs of Indian 
     country, the potential impact of the project on the Indian 
     reservation, and address measures to ensure the proper 
     protection of that reservation. Other sections of the Act 
     likewise establish appropriate checks and balances by 
     recognizing and giving effect to the responsibilities and 
     expertise that such other agencies have on natural resource 
     management--such as that provided by Interior's Fish & 
     Wildlife Service and the Department of Commerce on fisheries 
     and fish passage facilities as well as the vital and 
     longstanding authority exercised by States and Tribes in 
     setting water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. 
     While hydropower is clean energy, it is clean only because of 
     the important role that these other agencies, with the 
     necessary expertise, have in addressing terms and conditions 
     for hydropower licenses. FERC does not have the technical 
     capacity to make these decisions.
       The current process affords the hydropower industry ample 
     opportunity to consider and respond to potential Section 
     4(e), 18 and Clean Water Act conditions. Hydropower licenses 
     can (and in fact do) actively participate in the process by 
     which these conditions are deliberated and set. And while 
     these conditions are not subject to modification by FERC, 
     they are subject to judicial review, and FERC is free to 
     express its disagreement with the conditions, so that FERC's 
     views can also be considered by the courts.
       Finally, while the current process may take time to 
     complete necessary studies and vetting of potential 
     conditions, any delay in renewing licenses does not harm the 
     hydropower licensees. As a general matter, until the license 
     renewal process is completed, hydropower licenses are able to 
     operate under their existing licenses which, in our 
     experience, typically do not have many of the conditions 
     needed to protect Indian reservations or natural resources.
       We urge you to oppose amendments to the Federal Power Act 
     that would undermine the federal trust responsibility to 
     protect Indian Reservations or that would alter the Interior 
     Secretary's authority under section 4(e), the provisions of 
     section 18, or the Clean Water Act.
           Sincerely,
     Charles ``Guy'' Miller.
                                  ____


                 National Congress of American Indians

  The National Congress of American Indians Resolution No. MKE-17-005


 title: to oppose proposed hydropower amendments to the federal power 
                                  act

       Whereas, we, the members of the National Congress of 
     American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine 
     blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in 
     order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the 
     inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights 
     secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United 
     States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are 
     entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States 
     and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of 
     Indigenous Peoples, to enlighten the public toward a better 
     understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian 
     cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and 
     welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and submit 
     the following resolution; and
       Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 
     was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest 
     national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native 
     tribal governments; and
       Whereas, Indian Tribes are sovereigns that pre-date the 
     United States, with prior and treaty protected rights to 
     self-government and to our Indian and Alaska Native lands; 
     and
       Whereas, the conservation and preservation of tribal land 
     and resources is a priority for all tribes and a critical 
     component of the federal trust responsibility; and
       Whereas, fish are a sacred resource for many tribes; and
       Whereas, the production of electricity through hydropower 
     dams includes impacts to water quality, waterways, wildlife, 
     recreation, livelihoods, customary and traditional 
     activities, and treaty resources within and outside Indian 
     and Alaska Native lands; and
       Whereas, the impacts of hydropower projects located on 
     federal lands often extend far beyond the confines of the 
     specific lands on which the projects are sited; and
       Whereas, some members of Congress and representatives from 
     the hydropower industry have proposed amendments to the 
     Federal Power Act that would (a) weaken the current 
     protections Indian tribes have through the Mandatory 
     Conditions requirements under Section 4(e) and Section 18 of 
     that Act, (b) roll back efforts to restore fish populations 
     through the requirement of fishways, and (c) unnecessarily 
     limit the available time and scientific information available 
     to federal agencies in deciding what Mandatory Conditions 
     should be included with a license; and
       Whereas, these proposed amendments to the Federal Power Act 
     would not improve the federal hydropower licensing process, 
     which is an important source of protections for tribal lands 
     and resources, but rather weaken these critical protections. 
     Now therefore be it
       Resolved, that the National Congress of American Indians 
     (NCAI), its leadership, and its executive staff shall call on 
     the U.S. Congress and the Administration to oppose all 
     proposed amendments to the hydropower provisions in the 
     Federal Power Act that would remove or lessen the protections 
     currently afforded tribal governments, tribal lands, inherent 
     reserved rights, treaty rights and other tribal resources 
     under the Federal Power Act; and be it further
       Resolved, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI 
     until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.


                             certification

       The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General 
     Assembly at the 2017 Annual Session of the National Congress 
     of American Indians, held at the Wisconsin Center in 
     Milwaukee, WI, Oct 15, 2017-Oct 20, 2017, with a quorum 
     present.
     Jefferson Keel,
       President.
       Attest: Juana Majel Dixon, Recording Secretary.

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, the substitute amendment that we will consider 
shortly provides Indian Tribes with authority to speak for themselves 
with respect to the hydropower licensing process.
  Currently, Mr. Chair, the agencies of the Departments of the Interior 
and Commerce proposed conditions to protect Tribal reservations. If the 
substitute is enacted, Tribes that have sufficient capacity can assume 
responsibility for protecting their own reservations.

                              {time}  1445

  The Tribal authority provision is absolutely very important and long 
overdue. As sovereign entities, Tribes have a status different from 
that of States and Federal agencies. They should be negotiating on 
their own behalf to protect their own interests.

[[Page H8624]]

  Mr. Chair, hydropower projects, a number of which were designed and 
built over the objections of Tribes, resulted in devastating losses of 
Tribal lands and fisheries.
  We can and must do better. Hydropower projects can be designed, 
upgraded, and operated in ways that lower the environmental costs and 
preserve other important uses of the river.
  Current law and current regulations already provide for consultation 
with Tribes. In fact, under the integrated license process, applicants 
are required to consult with Tribes 5 years before the current license 
expires if they plan to seek a renewed license.
  The integrated license process was designed specifically for the more 
complex, controversial hydropower projects, either new projects or 
relicensing of existing projects.
  Mr. Chair, many applicants, however, request and are allowed to 
pursue their license under the traditional license process that 
includes less opportunity for consultation. FERC should be denying some 
of these requests, but each and every one of them are granted by FERC.
  When this happens, controversial projects run into predictable 
problems that bog down the license process. This is an administrative 
change that FERC could make that would require no new legislation and 
would improve the license process.
  Mr. Chair, this bill does nothing--absolutely nothing--to speed up 
this problem or fix the process that we have been discussing.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
don't intend to use all the time that is remaining. I just want to make 
a couple of points to my colleagues as we close debate on the general 
debate on this bill.
  This isn't a new bill. A lot of us in this body on both sides support 
an all-of-the-above strategy. It includes safe nuclear. It includes 
clean coal. It supports energy efficiencies, renewables, wind, solar, 
and hydro.
  This bill, H.R. 3043, is not a new bill. In fact, the provisions, 
almost to a tee, in both the House and the Senate version last year in 
a bill that ultimately didn't get conferenced to President Obama, we 
didn't really have any disagreements on the hydro section. We came to 
an agreement and the House passed the bill as it relates to the hydro 
bill. And the Senate bill passed, as I recall it, 92-8, pretty 
overwhelming, pretty bipartisan. In essence, the same provisions that 
we have here.
  I got to say that, throughout the process, we listened to the concern 
raised by some of the stakeholders, including States and Tribes. We 
made a number of significant changes to the version of the bill as 
compared to the version again last year that added more strength, more 
hurdles to go through.
  The biggest change, frankly, that we made was taking the hammer away 
from FERC to compel agencies to stick to a deadline. Consequently, no 
permits are going to be granted by default because of a missed 
deadline. But we also inserted new State and Tribal consultation 
requirements with a very strong savings clause that clarifies that 
nothing shall affect the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws. 
That wasn't in the bill last year. That is new this year.
  So I think that we have accommodated the concerns, particularly when 
many of the Members that are here in this Congress that were there last 
Congress actually voted for the provisions we had, certainly in 
committee as well as on the Senate floor.
  Again, I just want to read into the Record page 17, line 23: ``No 
Effect on Other Laws. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
affect any requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the 
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the Rivers 
and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899), and those provisions of 
subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, commonly known as the 
National Historic Preservation Act, with respect to an application for 
a license under this part.''
  This bill is stronger than the one that most of us supported last 
year, particularly as it pertains to hydroelectric licensing by FERC.
  So I commend the action of Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, who, again, carried 
the water on this in this Congress. I would like to think that we will 
have a positive vote with Republicans and Democrats supporting the 
bill. We are prepared to now discuss and debate the amendments.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3043, the 
Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017. However, I would like to 
point out the positive outcomes this bill would provide to the 
Hydropower industry. This bill would improve the administrative 
efficiency, accountability and transparency in the process of expanding 
hydropower generation. It would bring certainty and timeliness to the 
licensing process, that right now takes decades to move through. This 
bill would require other federal agencies to submit earlier any 
foreseeable issues that would prolong the licensing process, instead of 
waiting until the last hour as they are able to today.
  With that said, H.R. 3043 falls short in its treatment of tribal 
communities. I believe the proponents of this bill have worked in the 
best interest of Indian Country, but have unfortunately fallen short. 
First, this bill would overturn the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 
decision in Tacoma v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that 
held that the Department of the Interior has the mandatory authority to 
develop appropriate conditions to protect federal Indian reservations 
under the Federal Power Act. Also, that FERC has no authority to reject 
these conditions because the Interior Department did not meet FERC's 
schedule. H.R. 3043, would overturn this decision by allowing FERC to 
put a clock on other Federal agencies and force them to accommodate 
their schedule. For example, if the Interior Department misses the 
deadline then Tribal interests cannot be considered again until the 
next re-licensing opportunity at least 40 years later.
  H.R. 3043 does nothing to strengthen the tribal voice in the process 
and truncates our trustee agencies' responsibility. This bill would 
allow FERC to make the determination as to the scope of environmental 
review for 4(e) conditions, which the Interior Department is already 
required to give deference to. Hydropower projects affect entire 
watersheds, which in turn impact Indian reservations in ways that FERC 
and the hydropower industry have fought to deny. However, in Tacoma v. 
FERC, the Court was again clear that if a project is on Indian lands, 
Interior alone gets to determine what conditions, and by necessity the 
environmental review, that are necessary to protect the Indian 
Reservation.
  H.R. 3043 would require Interior to balance energy generating 
interests against the Agency's trust responsibility to protect Indian 
Reservations. Currently, under the Federal Power Act, Interior's only 
interest is developing conditions to protect federal Indian 
Reservations, which, frankly, should only be their interests in line 
with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and not the Department of Energy.
  Finally, H.R. 3043 would overturn the Supreme Court's decision in 
Escondido v. FERC, 466 U.S. 765 (1984) and give FERC the authority to 
make a determination that a 4(e) condition and fishway condition is 
inconsistent with the Federal Power Act. This is unprecedented change 
in the Federal Power Act, which will undermine the federal trustee 
agency's ability to protect Indian lands and resources.
  There is nothing in the bill that improves the FERC relicensing in 
regards to tribes and, frankly, would severely undermine tribal 
governments and Interior Department's ability to protect tribal and 
trust resources.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from: Vermont 
Agency of Natural Resources, California State Water Resources Control 
Board, Western Governors' Association, State of Washington Department 
of Ecology, Environmental Council of the States, and Association of 
State Wetland Managers.

                                                 State of Vermont,


                                  Agency of Natural Resources,

                               Montpelier, VT, September 12, 2017.
     Re Comments in Opposition to Hydropower Policy Modernization 
         Act of 2017, H.R. 3043.

     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The Vermont 
     Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR) would like to express 
     strong concerns over the proposed Hydropower Policy 
     Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043. While VTANR supports 
     efforts to improve and streamline current hydroelectric 
     licensing processes, the Agency strongly opposes legislative 
     efforts to diminish States' ability to protect water quality. 
     Several provisions of H.R. 3043 would essential curtail the 
     State authority under Section 401 of the

[[Page H8625]]

     federal Clean Water Act, effectively constraining State 
     agencies' ability to use their independent authority to set 
     license conditions, making it more difficult to protect 
     natural resources.
       VTANR strenuously opposes provisions of H.R. 3043 that 
     eliminate or reduce States' delegated authority under Section 
     401 of the federal Clean Water Act to develop mandatory 
     licensing conditions protective of natural resources. State 
     agencies serve an essential role in the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process for 
     hydroelectric facilities. H.R. 3043 would designate FERC as 
     the lead agency over federal authorizations related to 
     applications of hydroelectric projects for a license, license 
     amendment, or exemptions. As the lead agency, FERC would 
     establish and control the timeline for licensing review and 
     process for hydroelectric projects. H.R. 3043 appears to give 
     FERC the authority to create a schedule reducing the time a 
     State would have to get necessary scientific studies 
     completed and reviewed to determine specific conditions 
     needed to protect water quality, as required under Section 
     401 of the federal Clean Water Act. This would effectively 
     permit FERC to license a facility before a thorough review of 
     the environmental impacts could be completed. Vermont uses 
     its Section 401 authority to issue water quality 
     certifications with conditions to ensure projects are built 
     and operated in a manner consistent with State environmental 
     laws and protective of the environment and public health.
       In addition, a provision of H.R. 3043 provides applicants 
     with an opportunity to a trial-type hearing before a FERC 
     Administrative Law Judge whenever there is a dispute of 
     material fact. Under the provisions of H.R. 3043, the 
     decision of the FERC Administrative Law Judge would be final 
     and not subject to further administrative review. Currently, 
     conditions included in a Section 401 water quality 
     certification become mandatory license conditions and cannot 
     be altered or modified by FERC. Further matters of material 
     facts related to Section 401 water quality certifications for 
     hydroelectric facilities are heard at the State level by 
     courts or boards that are familiar with a State's water 
     quality standards and other environmental laws. The allowance 
     for the trial-type hearing before FERC could undermine the 
     States' authority granted under Section 401, making it more 
     challenging to protect water quality and natural resources.
       Through decades of decisions, federal courts have affirmed 
     the authority of States to impose conditions in federal 
     licenses issued to hydroelectric projects under Section 401 
     of the Clean Water Act. These decisions recognize that States 
     have the primary responsibility to ensure State water quality 
     standards and other environmental laws are met. H.R. 3043 
     would undermine this authority by including a provision that 
     would allow FERC to seek resolution between it and States at 
     the federal level, elevating the dispute to the secretary 
     overseeing the federal statute. In the case of the federal 
     Clean Water Act, H.R. 3043 appears to allow FERC to negotiate 
     with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     or Secretary of Army, who are responsible for Clean Water Act 
     on the federal level, to settle a dispute with between it and 
     a state, effectively cutting States out of the process.
       Vermont's interest in protecting natural resources is as 
     important and relevant today as ever, particularly because a 
     large number of hydroelectric facilities in Vermont are 
     slated to begin the federal relicensing process over the next 
     five years. FERC issues licenses to hydroelectric projects 
     for a term of 30 to 50 years. As such, many of the projects 
     scheduled for relicensing will likely need significant 
     changes in operations to meet modern water quality standards 
     and to restore State water resources from impacts of project 
     operations. As drafted, H.R. 3043 would reduce VTANR 
     delegated authority under Section 401 of the federal Clean 
     Water Act, creating ways for project operators to circumvent 
     state regulations during the licensing process to allow them 
     to operate in a manner that would continue to degrade the 
     environment and resources of the State.
       VTANR recognizes the importance of hydroelectric generation 
     in meeting renewable energy goals. We urge you to consider 
     how the federal process can be improved without undermining 
     the very checks and balances that have helped hydroelectric 
     generation be viewed as a sustainable and renewable energy 
     source.
       We appreciate your consideration of these comments on H.R. 
     3043 and look forward to solutions that improve our energy 
     security and infrastructure while protecting the environment.
           Sincerely,
                                             Julia S. Moore, P.E.,
     Secretary.
                                  ____

                                                  California State


                                Water Resources Control Board,

                                     Sacramento, CA, May 17, 2017.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank Pallone,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone:


   comments in opposition to provisions of house of representatives 
discussion drafts: (1) hydropower policy modernization act of 2017; (2) 
promoting closed-loop pumped storage hydropower act; and (3) promoting 
        hydropower development at existing non-powered dams act

       The California State Water Resources Control Board (State 
     Water Board) would like to express its concerns with the 
     following House of Representatives Legislative Discussion 
     Drafts: (1) Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017; (2) 
     Promoting Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower Act; and (3) 
     Promoting Hydropower Development at Existing Non-Powered Dams 
     Act (collectively Hydropower Discussion Drafts). While the 
     State Water Board supports the goals of energy infrastructure 
     modernization, it opposes several provisions as drafted 
     because the Hydropower Discussion Drafts would reduce or 
     eliminate essential protections for California's natural 
     resources.
       The Hydropower Discussion Drafts would seriously impact the 
     mandatory conditioning authority of the State Water Board 
     under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, as well as similar 
     authorities of federal agencies. State and federal agencies 
     serve an essential role in the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission's (Commission) hydropower licensing process. The 
     Hydropower Discussion Drafts designate the Commission as the 
     sole lead agency over federal authorizations related to an 
     application for a license, license amendment, or exemption 
     for a hydropower project. As the sole lead agency, the 
     Commission would establish and control the timeline for the 
     hydropower licensing process for all aspects of federal 
     authorization, including Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 
     As such, the Commission could limit the State Water Board and 
     federal agencies' time to complete their respective actions 
     which could adversely impact the agencies' ability to comply 
     with necessary state and federal laws and may negatively 
     impact public and environmental health.
       As noted in this letter, the State Water Board is 
     particularly concerned about provisions of the Hydropower 
     Discussion Drafts that would undermine states' authorities 
     under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. As former Chief 
     Justice Rehnquist observed, there has been a ``consistent 
     thread of purposeful and continued deference to state water 
     law by Congress.'' (California v. U.S. (1978) 438 U.S. 645, 
     653.) This ``cooperative federalism'' is epitomized by 
     Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which authorizes states 
     to set conditions to protect the waters of their states, and 
     provides that review of conditions of certification is in 
     state court, not by federal agencies. In so doing, Section 
     401 preserves both state authority and the integrity of state 
     procedures and state institutions in overseeing how state 
     agencies exercise that authority. Consistent with Congress' 
     usual respect for state rights in this area, this structure 
     must be preserved. The Hydropower Discussion Drafts 
     inappropriately place limitations on state rights in this 
     area by placing Section 401 of the Clean Water Act in the 
     definition of Federal Authorization and under the 
     Commission's jurisdiction.
       The State Water Board recognizes the importance of 
     hydropower as a clean energy source that helps provide grid 
     reliability and supports the goal of promoting efficiencies 
     in the Commission's licensing of hydropower projects. To 
     promote such efficiencies, in 2013, the State Water Board 
     entered into a memorandum of understanding with the 
     Commission to coordinate pre-application procedures and 
     schedules between the two agencies. Since implementation, the 
     memorandum of understanding has improved coordination between 
     the State Water Board and the Commission, and is beginning to 
     streamline portions of the licensing process. The State Water 
     Board acknowledges that it has a pending backlog of water 
     quality certification applications, due in part to 
     California's recent drought, and we are committed to acting 
     upon these applications as expeditiously as possible. The 
     State Water Board opposes provisions of the Hydropower 
     Discussion Drafts because they may result in harm to 
     California's water quality and associated beneficial uses, 
     public lands, and fish and wildlife by removing key state and 
     federal authorities designed to protect the environment and 
     the public enjoyment of the environment. Specific comments 
     and concerns are provided in Attachment A. Key provisions of 
     the Hydropower Discussion Drafts are provided in Attachment B 
     for ease of reference in reviewing the State Water Board's 
     comments.
       I appreciate your consideration of these comments and look 
     forward to solutions that improve our energy security and 
     infrastructure while protecting the environment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Felicia Marcus,
     Chair.
                                  ____



                               Western Governors' Association,

                                                      May 1, 2017.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Frank J. Pallone,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone: Western 
     Governors recognize the importance of renewable energy 
     sources, including hydropower, as critical components of an 
     all-of-the-above national energy portfolio. The West accounts 
     for nearly 70 percent of the nation's hydroelectric power 
     generation, and the Pacific

[[Page H8626]]

     Northwest is the nation's largest hydropower-producing region 
     Western Governors support improving the efficiency of 
     existing hydropower systems and increasing the amount of 
     electricity generated from new, retrofitted, or relicensed 
     hydroelectric facilities.
       States are vested with primary authority to manage water 
     within their borders, and they have the authority to develop, 
     use, control and distribute water resources within their 
     boundaries. As expressed in section B(1)(a) of WGA Policy 
     Resolution 2015-08, Water Resource Management in the West.
       ``While the Western Governors acknowledge the important 
     role of federal laws such as the Clean Water Act, the 
     Endangered Species Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
     nothing in any act of Congress or Executive Branch regulatory 
     action should be construed as affecting or intending to 
     affect states' primacy over the allocation and administration 
     of their water resources.''
       Western Governors are concerned about provisions in Section 
     34, ``Hydropower Licensing and Process Improvement'' of the 
     proposed Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017. 
     Portions of the language included in the published discussion 
     draft of this proposal are identical to language of Subtitle 
     B, ``Hydropower Regulatory Modernization'' of the proposed 
     North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015 
     (H.R. 8).
       On July 18, 2016, Governor Steve Bullock and Governor 
     Dennis Daugaard provided correspondence (attached) to the 
     Committee, expressing the Western Governors' concerns over 
     the language included in Subtitle B of H.R. 8, which would 
     have designated the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     (FERC) as lead agency fol all hydropower authorizations, 
     approvals, and requirements mandated by federal law, 
     including hydropower facility licenses and amendments, as 
     well as all permits, special use authorizations, 
     certifications, and opinions. The Governors requested that 
     this language be removed or amended so that existing state 
     hydropower licensing authorities are not replaced, or in any 
     way impeded, by FERC jurisdiction.
       Western Governors request that the language in Section 34 
     of the proposed Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017 
     be removed or amended so that states' existing hydropower 
     licensing authorities are in no way usurped by FERC 
     jurisdiction. Thank you for your attention to this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James D. Ogsbury,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                              State of Washington,


                                        Department of Ecology,

                                    Olympia, WA, November 3, 2017.
     Re Hydropower Regulatory Modernization Act of 2017.
     Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone: I am 
     writing to express my concerns with the Hydropower Regulatory 
     Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043, which would amend the 
     Federal Power Act to modify certain requirements. The 
     Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) supports the 
     ostensible intent of this bill to gain efficiency in the 
     licensing of hydropower projects. In addition, we support the 
     goal of improving the certainty and timeliness of the 
     hydropower licensing process. However, provisions in H.R. 
     3043 that modify the authorities of the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) would impede or invalidate 
     states' independent authority provided by Section 401 of the 
     Clean Water Act (CWA Sec. 401) to establish license 
     conditions that protect water quality.
       Our residents and tribes harvest salmon from the Puget 
     Sound up through the Columbia River, and our farmers grow 
     hops in the Yakima River basin. They also depend on water as 
     a source of energy to power their homes and communities, and 
     our industries rely on abundant and consistent energy to 
     build aircraft in Everett, power data server farms in Quincy, 
     manufacture car bodies for electric vehicles in Moses Lake, 
     and process apples along the Wenatchee River basin. Balancing 
     the need for clean energy with the need for safe water 
     supplies begins with the proper management of water as a 
     resource, and it is one of the major focal points of this 
     legislation.
       Decades of federal court decisions interpreting CWA 
     Sec. 401 have established the states' authority to require 
     conditions in FERC licenses that are necessary to protect 
     water quality. These decisions recognize and affirm the basic 
     principle of federalism embodied in the CWA that states have 
     a primary role and responsibility to ensure state water 
     quality standards are met.
       Ecology implements the state's Water Pollution Control Act 
     (RCW 90.48). As the state water pollution control agency, we 
     are responsible for implementing federal water pollution 
     control laws and regulations, including state water quality 
     certifications required by CWA Sec. 401 for any federal 
     permit or license that result in a discharge to state waters. 
     Ecology has developed durable partnerships with the 
     hydropower industry in Washington State--the largest of any 
     state in the nation--and has a successful record of 
     accomplishment in expediting water quality certifications 
     that are incorporated as FERC license conditions.
       In an effort to improve H.R. 3043, my team worked for 
     several weeks with two members of the National Hydropower 
     Association along with staff at the Chelan County Public 
     Utility District in Washington State. Our objective in these 
     discussions was to maintain the intent of this legislation 
     while also protecting states' authority provided in the CWA 
     Sec. 401. Although the group did not reach full consensus, 
     significant progress was made to put forth alternative 
     language that would remove ambiguity regarding FERC and state 
     authority. My team identified a number of changes in language 
     that are necessary to protect independent state authority to 
     condition and certify FERC licenses. If provided more time, 
     and engagement directly with your committee, I am confident 
     that all parties can reach a mutually-satisfactory policy.
       Ecology appreciates Congress' effort to streamline the FERC 
     licensing process, however, the addition of SEC. 34(b)(2) 
     OTHER AGENCIES AND INDIAN TRIBES, would require states' water 
     quality certification process to follow a schedule under the 
     requirements of the FERC, rather than the schedule in CWA 
     Sec. 401. The timelines and independent state authorities 
     granted by CWA Sec. 401 must remain intact, as both are 
     essential for states to issue water quality certifications. 
     States must also retain the ability to practice a ``withdraw 
     and reapply'' process that has proven necessary for some 
     complex hydropower licenses. If FERC is provided authority to 
     oversee and set a timeline different than that provided under 
     CWA Sec. 401, it undermines states' ability to ensure 
     effectiveness and certainty for protection of water quality.
       Meanwhile, SEC. 34. HYDROPOWER LICENSING AND PROCESS 
     IMPROVEMENTS (b) designates FERC as the lead agency for 
     federal authorizations related to a license application, 
     license amendment, or exemption for a hydropower license. 
     H.R. 3043 SEC. 34. HYDROPOWER LICENSING AND PROCESS 
     IMPROVEMENTS (d) also requires states to adhere to deadlines 
     established by FERC, effectively reducing the amount of time 
     a state would have to complete scientific studies necessary 
     to determine whether water quality standards and requirements 
     would be met in accordance with CWA Sec. 401. This will 
     likely create pressure on states to utilize existing 
     information (SEC 3 (b)) rather than new studies to make these 
     determinations.
       In Washington State, work thus far to provide CWA Sec. 401 
     certifications for licensing of hydropower facilities have 
     been timely, responsive, efficient, and protective of the 
     state's water quality. While additional work remains, durable 
     partnerships and a strong track record form a solid 
     foundation to build upon.
       In summary, Ecology opposes this bill in its current form 
     because:
       FERC will have undue influence on the ability of states and 
     tribes to obtain environmental data and information via 
     studies that are necessary to write CWA Sec. 401 
     certifications to protect waters in their jurisdiction.
       It would lock state and federal natural resource agencies 
     into a no-win situation. Agencies will be forced to make 
     regulatory decisions based on incomplete applications that 
     lack the necessary technical information, which would put 
     agencies at risk of missing new FERC deadlines resulting in 
     litigation.
       We believe this bill provides enough ambiguity for 
     individuals to attempt to preempt state CWA Sec. 401 
     authority. The bill as written could result in legal 
     challenges and protracted litigation on how the extension of 
     FERC's authority conflicts with states' rights to protect 
     water quality and quantity.
       Finally, Ecology views many elements of this modernization 
     bill as unnecessary. In July 2005, FERC restructured its 
     process and implementing the Integrated Licensing Process 
     (ILP) that effectively streamlined FERC's licensing process. 
     Over the course of 12 years, Washington State has provided 
     water quality certifications for 16 FERC issued licenses as 
     well as 10 license amendments. The ILP has proven to be a 
     predictable, efficient, and timely licensing process that 
     continues to ensure adequate resource protections. This bill 
     would eliminate the flexibility available in the current 
     system and return to a traditional approach that is less 
     responsive to environmental concerns and more susceptible to 
     litigation.
       We urge that the provisions of H.R. 3043 that would have 
     the effect of curtailing state authority under CWA Sec. 401 
     be significantly improved or stricken from the bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Maia D. Bellon,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3043, the 
Hydropower Policy Modernization Act, sponsored by fellow Energy and 
Commerce committee member and our Conference Chair, Cathy McMorris 
Rodgers.
  Hydropower plays an integral role in generating electricity across 
the nation, especially back in my home state of Oregon. Hydropower 
generates nearly 43 percent of electricity in Oregon and this 
dependable baseload power has helped drive the development of 
everything from value-added agriculture processing to data centers, 
creating jobs along the Columbia River and throughout Oregon.
  Nationally, hydropower is the largest source of renewable electricity 
generation and a recent Department of Energy report found that

[[Page H8627]]

U.S. hydropower could grow by almost 50 percent by the year 2050. 
However, as my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest and across the 
country know, we are not taking full advantage of this valuable 
resource. Unfortunately, the duration, complexity, and uncertainty of 
the licensing process has raised significant challenges, preventing 
investments that would create jobs and benefit consumers.
  Thankfully, my good friend from Washington introduced this 
legislation to alleviate these problems and streamline the federal 
hydropower licensing process. The bill before us today didn't just 
emerge from thin air. It is the culmination of five committee hearings 
and markups, along with several bipartisan staff meetings with the 
hydropower industry and tribes that have a stake in the licensing 
proceedings.
  We solicited feedback from all stakeholders as we crafted this 
legislation and made a number of changes to address the concerns 
raised. We added new provisions to ensure that states and tribes are 
consulted early in the licensing process to identify and resolve issues 
of concern. We also made sure that state and local governments could 
recoup the costs of reviewing applications and conducting studies. We 
even added a strong savings clause that clarifies our intent that 
nothing in this bill shall be construed to affect any requirement of 
the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and other environmental 
laws.
  In recognition of the regular order committee process, H.R. 3043 
sailed out of committee unanimously by voice vote. The supporters of 
this bill, especially labor and industry organizations, recognize the 
vital role it will play in supporting job growth, local economic 
development, and providing much-needed reforms to the licensing 
process.
  H.R. 3043 seeks to modernize the permitting process by improving 
administrative efficiency, accountability, and transparency; requiring 
timely decision making; and by designating Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission as the lead agency is approving permits. You may be asking 
yourself, `why is this process in need of reform?' The answer is 
simple. As my colleague from Washington likes to point out, it can take 
up to 10 years or longer to license a new hydropower project of 
relicense an existing facility. Further underscoring the need for this 
legislation is the fact that by 2030, over 400 existing projects with 
over 18,700 megawatts of capacity will begin the relicensing process.
  Mr. Chair, this emissions-free energy resource should not be bogged 
down in bureaucratic red tape any longer. It's past time we modernize 
this grossly outdated licensing process, so we can get projects to 
market faster and streamline those projects in need of relicensing. At 
the end of the day, this important legislation promotes hydropower 
development, creates jobs, and provides consumers across the country 
with continued access to clean, affordable, and reliable baseload power 
generation.
  I include in the Record the Supporters of H.R. 3043:

       The American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE); (American 
     Public Power Association (APPA); Business Council for 
     Sustainable Energy (BCSE); Edison Electric Institute (EEI), 
     International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (Boilermakers); 
     International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); 
     International Federation of Professional and Technical 
     Engineers (IFPTE); Large Public Power Council (LPPC); 
     Laborers' International Union of North America (LiUNA); 
     National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA); National 
     Hydropower Association (NHA); National Rural Electric 
     Cooperative Association (NRECA); North America Building 
     Trades Council (NABTU); United Brotherhood of Carpenters and 
     Joiners of America (Carpenters).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in opposition to 
H.R. 3043 from environmental, recreation, fisheries, and conservation 
groups from across the country along with the list of groups that have 
signed these letters.

Environmental, Fisheries, Recreation, and Conservation Organizations in 
                        Opposition to H.R. 3043

       Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alaska Survival; All Outdoors; 
     Alliance for the Great Lakes; Alpine Lakes Protection 
     Society; Altamaha Riverkeeper; American Packrafting 
     Association; American Rivers; American Whitewater; Anacostia 
     Watershed Society; Anglers of the Au Sable; Animal Welfare 
     Institute; Apalachicola Riverkeeper; Appalachian Mountain 
     Club; Association of Northwest Steelheaders; Atlantic Salmon 
     Federation; Black Warrior Riverkeeper; California Hydropower 
     Reform Coalition; California Outdoors; California River 
     Watch; California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; 
     California Trout; Cascadia Wildlands; Catawba Riverkeeper; 
     Center for Biological Diversity.
       Center for Environmental Law and Policy; Central Sierra 
     Environmental Resource Center; Clean Water Action; Coastal 
     Conservation League; Colorado River Water keeper Network; 
     Columbiana; Congaree Riverkeeper; Connecticut River 
     Conservancy; Conservation Law Foundation; Conservation 
     Northwest; Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship; Coosa 
     Riverkeeper; Crab Apple Whitewater Defenders of Wildlife; 
     Deschutes River Alliance; Downeast Salmon Federation; 
     Earth Design; Earthjustice; Earthworks; Endangered 
     Habitats League; Endangered Species Coalition; 
     Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC); 
     Foothill Conservancy; Foothills Paddling Club; Foothills 
     Water Network; Friends of Butte Creek.
       Friends of Cooper Landing; Friends of Grays Harbor; Friends 
     of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge; Friends of the Kinni; 
     Friends of Merrymeeting Bay; Friends of the Crooked River; 
     Friends of the Eel River; Friends of the River; Friends of 
     the White Salmon River; Golden West Women Flyfishers; Grand 
     Canyon Trust; Grand Riverkeeper Labrador; Great Lakes Council 
     Fly Fishers; Green Latinos; Hells Canyon Preservation 
     Council; High Country Conservation Advocates; Holy Spirit 
     Missionary Sisters; Huron River Watershed Council; Hydropower 
     Reform Coalition; Idaho Rivers United; Illinois Council of 
     Trout Unlimited; Institute for Fisheries Resources; James 
     River Association; Kalmiopsis Audubon Society; Kenai River 
     Watershed Foundation.
       Klamath Forest Alliance; Klamath Riverkeeper; Klamath-
     Siskiyou Wildlands Center; Kootenai Environmental Alliance; 
     League of Conservation Voters; Lower Columbia Canoe Club; 
     Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association; Maine Rivers; 
     Michigan Environmental Council; Michigan Hydro Relicensing 
     Coalition; Middle Susquehanna Riverkeeper; Milwaukee 
     Riverkeeper; Mono Lake Committee; Mousam and Kennebunk Rivers 
     Alliance; National Heritage Institute; National Park 
     Conservation Association; National Wildlife Federation; 
     Native Fish Society; Natural Heritage Institute; Natural 
     Resources Defense Council; Natural Resources Council of 
     Maine; Naturaland Trust; Nature Abounds; Naugatuck River 
     Revivial Group.
       New England FLOW; New Hampshire Rivers Council; North 
     Cascades Conservation Council; Northwest Environmental 
     Advocates; Northwest Guides and Anglers Association; 
     Northwest Resources Information Center; Olympic Forest 
     Coalition; Oregon Kayak and Canoe Club; Outdoor Alliance; 
     Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; Pacific 
     Rivers; Penobscot Paddle and Chowder Society; Planning and 
     Conservation League; Potomac Riverkeeper; Prairie Rivers 
     Network; Prince William Soundkeeper; Quartz Creek Homeowners' 
     Association; Religious Coalition for the Great Lakes; River 
     Alliance of Wisconsin; River Guardian Foundation; River 
     Network; Riverkeeper Network.
       Rogue Riverkeeper; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Save Our 
     Saluda; Save Our Wild Salmon; Save the Colorado; Selkirk 
     Conservation Alliance; Smith River Alliance; Snake River 
     Waterkeeper; South Carolina Native Plant Society; Southern 
     Environmental Law Center; South Yuba River Citizens League; 
     Spartanburg Area Conservancy; Spearfish Canyon Society; 
     Spokane Riverkeeper; St. Mary's River Watershed Association; 
     Tennessee Clean Water Network; The Lands Council; The 
     Mountaineers.
       The Roanoke River Basin Association; The Sierra Club; 
     Tributary Whitewater Tours, LLC; Trout Unlimited; Tuolumne 
     River Trust; Upstate Forever; Washington Environmental Law 
     Center (see Western Environmental Law Center); Washington 
     Wild; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; 
     WaterWatch of Oregon; WESPAC Foundation; West Michigan 
     Hacklers; Western Environmental Law Center; Wild Earth 
     Guardians; Wild Washington Rivers; Yadkin Riverkeeper; Zoar 
     Valley Paddling Club.
                                  ____

                                                 November 7, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters nationwide, we are writing to urge you to 
     oppose H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act. 
     This bill is a devastating assault on our nation's rivers and 
     the people and wildlife that depend upon them. Its passage 
     would end 95 years of balance in hydropower licensing, 
     tipping the scales against taxpayers and in favor of huge 
     utilities.
       Hydropower licenses are issued for up to 50 years. Many 
     hydropower facilities that are coming up for relicensing now 
     were first constructed before virtually all modern 
     environmental laws were in place. It is during relicensing 
     proceedings that the public gets the opportunity to ensure 
     that dam owners make the necessary changes to comply with 
     modern laws. The opportunity to mitigate for the damage to 
     the environment, while still providing reliable electricity, 
     only arises once in a generation or two.
       The balance the Federal Power Act currently strikes between 
     power and non-power values has existed for almost a century. 
     Current law protects the public's right to enjoy its rivers, 
     a right which can and should be compatible with responsible 
     electricity production. However, H.R. 3043 upends that 
     balance. Simply put, the bill is a massive giveaway to 
     special interests at the expense of healthy rivers and the 
     fish, wildlife, and people that depend upon them. If H.R. 
     3043 passes, power company profits will go to the head of the 
     line, ahead of every other user.
       We appreciate that the House Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce heard testimony from recreational and conservation 
     interests who raised serious concerns about its many 
     provisions. Unfortunately, the Committee

[[Page H8628]]

     chose to make no changes to reflect the constructive 
     suggestions that the Hydropower Reform Coalition put forward 
     that would improve the licensing process while maintaining 
     environmental protections. The Committee also failed to 
     solicit testimony from states, tribes, and federal natural 
     resource agencies whose authorities will be usurped by the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) if H.R. 3043 is 
     enacted. You are now being asked to vote on a bill that no 
     state, tribe, or conservation organization publicly supports. 
     The bill under consideration today will only benefit power 
     companies at the expense of every other user of a waterway.
       H.R. 3043 attempts to streamline the hydropower licensing 
     process by centralizing power and allowing FERC to set an 
     aggressive licensing schedule that all federal and state 
     agencies must adhere to throughout the licensing process. 
     There are no requirements that FERC or the licensee provide 
     the agencies with the information they deem necessary to 
     quickly and competently exercise their Clean Water Act or 
     Endangered Species Act authority. This creates a dynamic 
     where, unless every step of the process proceeds seamlessly, 
     agencies are faced with the impossible decision to either 
     exercise their authority without necessary information (which 
     exposes them to legal liability) or to fail to meet the 
     schedule. This change will constrain federal, state, and 
     tribal agencies use of their independent authorities and rush 
     decision making, potentially making it more difficult to 
     protect water quality, recover threatened and endangered 
     species, and manage tribal-trust resources and public lands.
       Other provisions of H.R. 3043, such as the changes to the 
     Trial Type Hearing process for alternative conditions, the 
     requirement that federal natural resource agencies conduct 
     costly, wasteful and time consuming review of matters outside 
     of their scope of expertise and jurisdiction, and the 
     requirement that scientific decisions be made only by 
     political appointees in Washington, DC are all examples of 
     how H.R. 3043 tilts the balance toward the interests of 
     power companies.
       In order to protect clean water, irrigation, meeting tribal 
     treaty and trust obligations, wildlife, recreational fishing, 
     commercial fishing, whitewater boating, water quality, 
     municipal water supply, fire safety, flood control, or any 
     other purpose other than generating power, we urge you to 
     vote NO on H.R. 3043.
           Sincerely,
       Alabama Rivers Alliance; American Packrafting Association; 
     American Rivers; American Whitewater; Apalachicola 
     Riverkeeper; Appalachian Mountain Club; Atlantic Salmon 
     Federation; California Outdoors; California Sportfishing 
     Protection Alliance; Cascadia Wildlands; Center for 
     Biological Diversity; Center for Environmental Law and 
     Policy; Columbia Bioregional Education Project; Connecticut 
     River Conservancy; Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship; 
     Defenders of Wildlife; Deschutes River Alliance; Downeast 
     Salmon Federation; Earthjustice.
       Earthworks; Endangered Habitats League; Endangered Species 
     Coalition; Environmental Protection Information Center 
     (EPIC); Foothill Conservancy; Friends of Butte Creek; Friends 
     of the Kinni; Friends of the River; Golden West Women 
     Flyfishers; Grand Riverkeeper Labrador; Green Latinos; High 
     Country Conservation Advocates; Idaho Rivers United; Illinois 
     Council of Trout Unlimited; Klamath Forest Alliance; Kootenai 
     Environmental Alliance; League of Conservation Voters; Lower 
     Columbia Canoe Club; Maine Rivers; Michigan Environmental 
     Council.
       Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition; Mono Lake Committee; 
     Mousam and Kennebunk Rivers Alliance; National Heritage 
     Institute; National Park Conservation Association; National 
     Wildlife Federation; Native Fish Society; Natural Heritage 
     Institute; Natural Resources Defense Council; Naturaland 
     Trust; North Cascades Conservation Council; Northwest 
     Environmental Advocates; Northwest Resource Information 
     Center; Oregon Kayak and Canoe Club; Oregon Natural Desert 
     Association; Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's 
     Associations; Pacific Rivers; Penobscot Paddle and Chowder 
     Society; Planning and Conservation League.
       Prarie Rivers Network; River Network; Riverkeeper Network; 
     Rogue Riverkeeper; Save Our Wild Salmon; Save the Colorado; 
     Selkirk Conservation Alliance; Southern Environmental Law 
     Center; St. Mary's River Watershed Association; The Lands 
     Council; The Mountaineers; The Sierra Club; Tributary 
     Whitewater Tours, LLC; Tuolumne River Trust; Upstate Forever; 
     Washington Environmental Law Center (see Western 
     Environmental Law Center); Washington Wild; WaterWatch of 
     Oregon; Wild Earth Guardians; Wild Earth Guardians; Wild 
     Washington Rivers.
                                  ____

                                     National Wildlife Federation,


                                     National Advocacy Center,

                                 Washington, DC, November 7, 2017.
       Dear Representative: The National Wildlife Federation, with 
     over 6 million members and supporters and its affiliate 
     organizations from 51 states and territories across the 
     country, represents a broad diversity of political views, 
     mirroring the nation. Regardless of party affiliation, these 
     members want their families to be safe, their water to be 
     clean, and ecosystems to be healthy in order to support our 
     nation's wildlife. It is important, then, that any large-
     scale energy project, including hydroelectric, uphold those 
     values as well. While NWF believes that the United States 
     should pursue a renewable energy future, the country should 
     do so while seeking to minimize harm to local ecosystems and 
     wildlife and gather input from those near hydroelectric 
     facility sites. This is especially important as hydropower is 
     not without environmental impacts, including greenhouse gases 
     released from reservoirs associated with dams. In order to 
     weigh all impacts as well as the benefits, proper review 
     processes should be followed and corners cannot be cut. 
     Because of these long-held standards, NWF opposes H.R. 3043, 
     the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.
       The National Wildlife Federation has long supported robust 
     environmental review processes. Federal and state governments 
     should approach projects with a genuine interest in 
     determining negative effects on the environment, wildlife, 
     and local communities. H.R. 3043 includes provisions that 
     place arbitrary deadlines on project reviews, even when it is 
     clear that a proper study will take longer. Unfortunately, 
     this bill would remove our experts in natural resources from 
     the review process and usurp states' rights to enforce their 
     own standards for hydropower projects. Additionally, 
     considerations of energy supply would be required alongside 
     protections for endangered species, fisheries, and cultural 
     sites, contradicting existing laws. If passed into law, H.R. 
     3043 would likely create confusion and litigation. We have 
     seen in the past how large-scale hydroelectric projects have 
     not always considered potential negative effects. We should 
     learn from our past mistakes, not repeat them.
       While there was a hearing on this bill, only the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission testified, leaving out important 
     voices. Among those voices left out were tribal leaders, 
     states, and local officials who will be required to abide by 
     these new rules. Not only does this legislation limit input 
     from those near proposed hydroelectric projects, but it also 
     does so for those who live near existing dams seeking a 
     permit renewal. This legislation would constrict the review 
     processes for dams approaching their 50-year review mark. It 
     is important to make sure that these projects, which were 
     built before our current rules were put in place, remain up 
     to the standards we set for human safety and minimal impact 
     to the environment, economically important fisheries, and 
     recreation sites.
       In short, while this bill and its proponents claim to help 
     our nation move toward a more sustainable and climate-
     friendly future, we need a system in place that can consider 
     our energy needs in addition to the economic, environmental 
     and cultural needs of our communities. Since climate change 
     is the most significant challenge of our time, we urge the 
     committee and supporters of this legislation to have a 
     transparent and robust discussion, not only of our energy 
     needs but also of potential impacts from hydropower such as 
     wildlife and greenhouse gases. For all of these reasons, 
     National Wildlife Federation recommends you oppose H.R. 3043.
           Sincerely,

                                                     Jim Lyon,

                           Vice President for Conservation Policy,
     National Wildlife Federation.
                                  ____



                                             Outdoor Alliance,

                                                 November 6, 2017.
     Re H.R. 3043, Hydropower Policy Modernization Act.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: We are 
     writing to ask you to oppose H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy 
     Modernization Act. If enacted, this bill would have 
     significant negative impacts on outdoor recreation and its 
     associated local economic benefits and would remove 
     opportunities for meaningful local public involvement in 
     hydropower licensing.
       Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of nine member-based 
     organizations representing the human powered outdoor 
     recreation community. The coalition includes Access Fund, 
     American Canoe Association, American Whitewater, 
     International Mountain Bicycling Association, Winter 
     Wildlands Alliance, The Mountaineers, the American Alpine 
     Club, the Mazamas, and Colorado Mountain Club and represents 
     the interests of the millions of Americans who climb, paddle, 
     mountain bike, and backcountry ski and snowshoe on our 
     nation's public lands, waters, and snowscapes.
       Our members directly participate in licensing processes for 
     hydropower projects in partnership with state and federal 
     resource agencies. The authorities granted to federal 
     agencies under the Federal Power Act, Clean Water Act, and 
     Endangered Species Act have helped ensure that hydropower 
     operations balance our society's need for power with the 
     benefits of flowing rivers. These benefits include important 
     economic contributions generated through the outdoor 
     recreation economy, and outdoor recreation may be one benefit 
     of hydropower under certain circumstances.
       Outdoor recreation powers a vast economic engine valued at 
     $887 billion annually with much of this activity focused 
     around water-based recreation, including rivers affected by

[[Page H8629]]

     hydropower operations. The National Hydropower Association's 
     own website, which promotes the benefits of hydropower, 
     states that ``Swimming, boating, fishing, camping, skiing and 
     hiking are just some of the recreational activities that take 
     place year-round and across the country at sites developed 
     and supported by the hydropower industry.''
       We are concerned that H.R. 3043 will severely limit the 
     ability of local communities to advocate for recreational 
     benefits in hydropower licensing. If passed, H.R. 3043 will 
     shift responsibilities away from states, federal land 
     managers with locally-based recreation staff, and affected 
     communities, and instead place exclusive authority within the 
     hands of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 
     FERC is a regulatory agency with no local field staff, 
     frequently with only the ability to participate in one or two 
     site visits in all. As a result, FERC staff are unlikely to 
     have experience and familiarity with local resources and 
     values. The end result of H.R. 3043 would be outcomes that 
     are detrimental to outdoor recreation and local communities.
       While hydropower provides certain benefits, it also always 
     comes with significant impacts. This legislation would upset 
     an important balance and the cooperative approach to 
     hydropower licensing that effectively ensures that the 
     interests of local communities and their interests in outdoor 
     recreation are represented. Outdoor Alliance finds the 
     hydropower provisions of H.R. 3043 to be deeply problematic, 
     and we oppose any effort to diminish the ability of citizens 
     and public resource agencies to ensure that hydropower 
     licenses include provisions to protect the public river 
     resources that are important to them.
           Best regards,

                                                Louis Geltman,

                                                  Policy Director,
     Outdoor Alliance.
                                  ____



                                              TROUT Unlimited,

                                                 November 6, 2017.
     Re Trout Unlimited opposes the ``Hydropower Policy 
         Modernization Act of 2017'' (H.R. 3043) and we urge 
         members of the House of Representatives to vote against 
         this legislation.
       Dear Representative: H.R. 3043 is due for House floor 
     consideration this week. We urge you to reject the bill and 
     instead to develop a bill worthy of broad stakeholder 
     support.
       Hydropower is an essential component of our nation's energy 
     mix. Hydropower produces energy with low hydrocarbon 
     emissions, but can and does cause massive impacts to 
     watershed health and fisheries habitats. Striking a balance 
     between power and nonpower values, such as fisheries habitat, 
     is essential.
       To that end, the Federal Power Act assigns oversight and 
     conditioning roles for the natural resource agencies to 
     ensure adequate protections or conditions related to project 
     effects on underlying lands, waters and related resources. 
     These authorities, in particular sections 18 and 4e of the 
     Federal Power Act, and section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 
     contain some of the most useful fisheries conservation 
     provisions in state or federal statute and are critical to 
     minimize and mitigate impacts to trout and salmon habitats, 
     covering issues like fish passage, instream flow below the 
     project and water quality and quantity issues.
       H.R. 3043 would significantly disrupt efforts to balance 
     power and nonpower values in the licensing process and for 
     all the wrong reasons. If the goal of the bill is to make the 
     licensing process more efficient and expeditious, Congress 
     should support the funding and information needs of the 
     resource agencies, not penalize or further constrain their 
     participation. H.R. 3043 instead would hamstring tribes, 
     states, and federal resource agencies from review and 
     conditioning of FERC licensed hydropower projects by imposing 
     overly restrictive timelines, adding new process hurdles for 
     debating agency requirements on applicants, and greatly 
     restricting the scope and basis on which resource agencies 
     can require conditions or investments to protect non-power 
     resources impacted by the project.
       The harmful bill could not come at a worse time. Dozens of 
     projects coming up for relicensing soon. Many of them haven't 
     been reviewed since being originally licensed 30-50 years 
     ago. It is more imperative now than ever to ensure strong 
     review of these projects.
       Instead of H.R. 3043 Congress should support smart process 
     improvements that will benefit applicants and operators while 
     supporting strong protections to balance nonpower values. 
     Smart improvements would include support for incremental 
     upgrades, promote ongoing investment and ongoing study during 
     the life of licenses so that we aren't starting from scratch 
     every 30 to 50 years. A smart approach would ensure that the 
     regulatory requirements for states, tribes and federal 
     resource agencies to permit and condition these projects is 
     fully supported early in the process to reduce conflict and 
     delay. H.R. 3043 misses these opportunities, focusing instead 
     placing arbitrary constraints on environmental review and 
     conditioning agency authorities that will result in increased 
     conflict during licensing.
       As we have said a number of times before, Congress should 
     take adequate time to hear the views of the tribes, as well 
     as the state and federal resource agencies about existing 
     process hurdles and potential solutions before legislating 
     changes to hydropower project licensing procedures and 
     standards. Some in the industry blame delays and cost 
     overruns on agency inaction and bad decisions, yet the 
     committee has so far not called them to testify. If the 
     committee wants to have a thoughtful legislative process, it 
     needs to hear from the agencies who some claim to be the root 
     of the problem. Although the Energy and Commerce committee 
     and its subcommittee on Energy and Power held hearings on 
     this bill and related hydropower legislation, those hearings 
     did not include these constituencies. Again, we urge the 
     committee and the House to take the time to do the 
     deliberative process in the right way, and build broad 
     support for bipartisan legislation.
       The most balanced and efficient way to bring new hydropower 
     online, is to ensure that the development is well-sited and 
     appropriately mitigated from the start and to support and 
     encourage early and often investment in evaluating and 
     improving operations over time.
       This bill fails the test of carefully balancing power and 
     non-power values, such as trout and salmon fisheries and 
     river restoration. Specifically, we urge the House to support 
     and defend--and not weaken as this bill does--resource agency 
     authorities and mandates--including the Clean Water Act, 
     Endangered Species Act and Federal Power Act.
       We urge you to vote against H.R. 3043.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Steve Moyer,
     Vice President of Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                 November 7, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members 
     and supporters nationwide, we are writing to urge you to 
     oppose H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act. 
     This bill is a devastating assault on our nation's rivers and 
     the people and wildlife that depend upon them. Its passage 
     would end 95 years of balance in hydropower licensing, 
     tipping the scales against taxpayers and in favor of huge 
     utilities.
       Hydropower licenses are issued for up to 50 years. Many 
     hydropower facilities that are coming up for relicensing now 
     were first constructed before virtually all modern 
     environmental laws were in place. It is during relicensing 
     proceedings that the public gets the opportunity to ensure 
     that dam owners make the necessary changes to comply with 
     modern laws. The opportunity to mitigate for the damage to 
     the environment, while still providing reliable electricity, 
     only arises once in a generation or two.
       The balance the Federal Power Act currently strikes between 
     power and non-power values has existed for almost a century. 
     Current law protects the public's right to enjoy its rivers, 
     a right which can and should be compatible with responsible 
     electricity production. However, H.R. 3043 upends that 
     balance. Simply put, the bill is a massive giveaway to 
     special interests at the expense of healthy rivers and the 
     fish, wildlife, and people that depend upon them. If H.R. 
     3043 passes, power company profits will go to the head of the 
     line, ahead of every other user.
       We appreciate that the House Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce heard testimony from recreational and conservation 
     interests who raised serious concerns about its many 
     provisions. Unfortunately, the Committee chose to make no 
     changes to reflect the constructive suggestions that the 
     Hydropower Reform Coalition put forward that would improve 
     the licensing process while maintaining environmental 
     protections. The Committee also failed to solicit testimony 
     from states, tribes, and federal natural resource agencies 
     whose authorities will be usurped by the Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) if H.R. 3043 is enacted. You are 
     now being asked to vote on a bill that no state, tribe, or 
     conservation organization publicly supports. The bill under 
     consideration today will only benefit power companies at the 
     expense of every other user of a waterway.
       H.R. 3043 attempts to streamline the hydropower licensing 
     process by centralizing power and allowing FERC to set an 
     aggressive licensing schedule that all federal and state 
     agencies must adhere to throughout the licensing process. 
     There are no requirements that FERC or the licensee provide 
     the agencies with the information they deem necessary to 
     quickly and competently exercise their Clean Water Act or 
     Endangered Species Act authority. This creates a dynamic 
     where, unless every step of the process proceeds seamlessly, 
     agencies are faced with the impossible decision to either 
     exercise their authority without necessary information (which 
     exposes them to legal liability) or to fail to meet the 
     schedule. This change will constrain federal, state, and 
     tribal agencies use of their independent authorities and rush 
     decision making, potentially making it more difficult to 
     protect water quality, recover threatened and endangered 
     species, and manage tribal-trust resources and public lands.
       Other provisions of H.R. 3043, such as the changes to the 
     Trial Type Hearing process for alternative conditions, the 
     requirement that federal natural resource agencies conduct 
     costly, wasteful and time consuming review of matters outside 
     of their scope of expertise and jurisdiction, and the 
     requirement that scientific decisions be made only by 
     political appointees in Washington, DC are all examples of 
     how H.R. 3043 tilts the balance toward the interests of power 
     companies.
       In order to protect clean water, irrigation, meeting tribal 
     treaty and trust obligations, wildlife, recreational fishing, 
     commercial

[[Page H8630]]

     fishing, whitewater boating, water quality, municipal water 
     supply, fire safety, flood control, or any other purpose 
     other than generating power, we urge you to vote NO on H.R. 
     3043.
           Sincerely,
       American Packrafting Association; American Rivers; American 
     Whitewater; Apalachicola Riverkeeper; Appalachian Mountain 
     Club; Atlantic Salmon Federation; California Outdoors; 
     California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Center for 
     Biological Diversity; Center for Environmental Law and 
     Policy; Connecticut River Conservancy; Conservatives for 
     Responsible Stewardship; Downeast Salmon Federation; 
     Earthjustice; Earthworks; Endangered Habitats League; 
     Endangered Species Coalition; Environmental Protection 
     Information Center (EPIC); Foothill Conservancy; Friends 
     of Butte Creek.
       Golden West Women Flyfishers; Grand Riverkeeper Labrador; 
     Green Latinos; High Country Conservation Advocates; Idaho 
     Rivers United; Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited; Klamath 
     Forest Alliance; Kootenai Environmental Alliance; League of 
     Conservation Voters; Lower Columbia Canoe Club; Maine Rivers; 
     Michigan Environmental Council; Michigan Hydro Relicensing 
     Coalition; Mono Lake Committee; Mousam and Kennebunk Rivers 
     Alliance; National Heritage Institute; National Park 
     Conservation Association; National Wildlife Federation; 
     Natural Resources Defense Council; Naturaland Trust.
       North Cascades Conservation Council; Northwest 
     Environmental Advocates; Oregon Kayak and Canoe Club; Pacific 
     Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; Penobscot 
     Paddle and Chowder Society; Planning and Conservation League; 
     Prairie Rivers Network; River Alliance of Wisconsin; River 
     Network; Riverkeeper Network; Rogue Riverkeeper; Save Our 
     Wild Salmon; Save the Colorado; Selkirk Conservation 
     Alliance; Southern Environmental Law Center; St. Mary's River 
     Watershed Association; The Lands Council; The Sierra Club; 
     Tributary Whitewater Tours, LLC; Tuolumne River Trust; 
     Upstate Forever; Washington Environmental Law Center (see 
     Western Environmental Law Center); Washington Wild; 
     WaterWatch of Oregon; Wild Washington Rivers.

  The Acting 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 Energy and Commerce, 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. 3043

       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 ``Hydropower Policy 
     Modernization Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. HYDROPOWER REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress on the Use of Hydropower Renewable 
     Resources.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) hydropower is a renewable resource for purposes of all 
     Federal programs and is an essential source of energy in the 
     United States; and
       (2) the United States should increase substantially the 
     capacity and generation of clean, renewable hydropower that 
     would improve environmental quality in the United States.
       (b) Modifying the Definition of Renewable Energy to Include 
     Hydropower.--Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 
     U.S.C. 15852) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``the following 
     amounts'' and all that follows through paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``not less than 15 percent in fiscal year 2017 and 
     each fiscal year thereafter shall be renewable energy.'' ; 
     and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means 
     electric energy generated from solar, wind, biomass, landfill 
     gas, ocean (including tidal, wave, current, and thermal), 
     geothermal, or municipal solid waste, or from a hydropower 
     project.''.
       (c) Preliminary Permits.--Section 5 of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 798) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``three'' and inserting 
     ``4''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) The Commission may--
       ``(1) extend the period of a preliminary permit once for 
     not more than 4 additional years beyond the 4 years permitted 
     by subsection (a) if the Commission finds that the permittee 
     has carried out activities under such permit in good faith 
     and with reasonable diligence; and
       ``(2) if the period of a preliminary permit is extended 
     under paragraph (1), extend the period of such preliminary 
     permit once for not more than 4 additional years beyond the 
     extension period granted under paragraph (1), if the 
     Commission determines that there are extraordinary 
     circumstances that warrant such additional extension.''.
       (d) Time Limit for Construction of Project Works.--Section 
     13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) is amended in the 
     second sentence by striking ``once but not longer than two 
     additional years'' and inserting ``for not more than 8 
     additional years,''.
       (e) License Term.--Section 15(e) of the Federal Power Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 808(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(e) Except'' and inserting the following:
       ``(e) License Term on Relicensing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Consideration.--In determining the term of a license 
     under paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider, among 
     other things, project-related investments to be made by the 
     licensee under a new license issued under this section, as 
     well as project-related investments made by a licencee over 
     the term of the existing license (including any terms under 
     annual licenses). In considering such investments, the 
     Commission shall give the same weight to--
       ``(A) investments to be made by the licensee to implement a 
     new license issued under this section, including--
       ``(i) investments in redevelopment, new construction, new 
     capacity, efficiency, modernization, rehabilitation, and 
     safety improvements; and
       ``(ii) investments in environmental, recreation, and other 
     protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures that will be 
     required or authorized by the license; and
       ``(B) investments made by the licensee over the term of the 
     existing license (including any terms under annual licenses), 
     beyond those required by the existing license when issued, 
     that--
       ``(i) resulted in, during the term of the existing 
     license--

       ``(I) redevelopment, new construction, new capacity, 
     efficiency, modernization, rehabilitation, or safety 
     improvements; or
       ``(II) environmental, recreation, or other protection, 
     mitigation, or enhancement measures; and

       ``(ii) did not result in the extension of the term of the 
     existing license by the Commission.''.
       (f) Alternative Conditions and Prescriptions.--Section 33 
     of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 823d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``deems'' and inserting 
     ``determines'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)(B), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``determined to be necessary'' before ``by 
     the Secretary'';
       (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (D) by striking paragraph (5);
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (B) by striking paragraph (5); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Further Conditions.--This section applies to any 
     further conditions or prescriptions proposed or imposed 
     pursuant to section 4(e), 6, or 18.''.

     SEC. 3. HYDROPOWER LICENSING AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Hydropower Licensing and Process Improvements.--Part I 
     of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 34. HYDROPOWER LICENSING AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `Federal 
     authorization'--
       ``(1) means any authorization required under Federal law 
     with respect to an application for a license under this part; 
     and
       ``(2) includes any permits, special use authorizations, 
     certifications, opinions, or other approvals as may be 
     required under Federal law to approve or implement the 
     license under this part.
       ``(b) Designation as Lead Agency.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall act as the lead 
     agency for the purposes of coordinating all applicable 
     Federal authorizations and for the purposes of complying with 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 
     et seq.).
       ``(2) Other agencies and indian tribes.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each Federal, State, and local 
     government agency and Indian tribe considering an aspect of 
     an application for Federal authorization shall coordinate 
     with the Commission and comply with the deadline established 
     in the schedule developed for the license under this part in 
     accordance with the rule issued by the Commission under 
     subsection (c).
       ``(B) Identification.--The Commission shall identify, as 
     early as practicable after it is notified by the applicant 
     for a license under this part, any Federal or State agency, 
     local government, or Indian tribe that may consider an aspect 
     of an application for a Federal authorization.
       ``(C) Notification.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Commission shall notify any agency 
     and Indian tribe identified under subparagraph (B) of the 
     opportunity to participate in the process of reviewing an 
     aspect of an application for a Federal authorization.
       ``(ii) Deadline.--Each agency and Indian tribe receiving a 
     notice under clause (i) shall submit a response acknowledging 
     receipt of the notice to the Commission within 30 days of 
     receipt of such notice and request.
       ``(D) Issue identification and resolution.--
       ``(i) Identification of issues.--Federal, State, and local 
     government agencies and Indian tribes that may consider an 
     aspect of an application for Federal authorization shall 
     identify, as early as possible, and share with the Commission 
     and the applicant, any issues of concern identified during 
     the pendency of the Commission's action under this part 
     relating to any Federal authorization that may delay or 
     prevent the granting of such authorization, including any 
     issues that may prevent the agency

[[Page H8631]]

     or Indian tribe from meeting the schedule established for the 
     license under this part in accordance with the rule issued by 
     the Commission under subsection (c).
       ``(ii) Issue resolution.--The Commission may forward any 
     issue of concern identified under clause (i) to the heads of 
     the relevant State and Federal agencies (including, in the 
     case of an issue of concern identified by a State or local 
     government agency or Indian tribe, the Federal agency 
     overseeing the delegated authority, or the Secretary of the 
     Interior with regard to an issue of concern identified by an 
     Indian tribe, as applicable) for resolution. If the 
     Commission forwards an issue of concern to the head of a 
     relevant agency, the Commission and the relevant agency shall 
     enter into a memorandum of understanding to facilitate 
     interagency coordination and resolution of such issues of 
     concern, as appropriate.
       ``(c) Schedule.--
       ``(1) Commission rulemaking to establish process to set 
     schedule.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section the Commission shall, in 
     consultation with the appropriate Federal agencies, issue a 
     rule, after providing for notice and public comment, 
     establishing a process for setting a schedule following the 
     filing of an application under this part for a license for 
     the review and disposition of each Federal authorization.
       ``(2) Elements of scheduling rule.--In issuing a rule under 
     this subsection, the Commission shall ensure that the 
     schedule for each Federal authorization--
       ``(A) includes deadlines for actions by--
       ``(i) any Federal or State agency, local government, or 
     Indian tribe that may consider an aspect of an application 
     for the Federal authorization;
       ``(ii) the applicant;
       ``(iii) the Commission; and
       ``(iv) other participants in any applicable proceeding;
       ``(B) is developed in consultation with the applicant and 
     any agency and Indian tribe that submits a response under 
     subsection (b)(2)(C)(ii);
       ``(C) provides an opportunity for any Federal or State 
     agency, local government, or Indian tribe that may consider 
     an aspect of an application for the applicable Federal 
     authorization to identify and resolve issues of concern, as 
     provided in subsection (b)(2)(D);
       ``(D) complies with applicable schedules established under 
     Federal and State law;
       ``(E) ensures expeditious completion of all proceedings 
     required under Federal and State law, to the extent 
     practicable; and
       ``(F) facilitates completion of Federal and State agency 
     studies, reviews, and any other procedures required prior to, 
     or concurrent with, the preparation of the Commission's 
     environmental document required under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       ``(d) Transmission of Final Schedule.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each application for a license under 
     this part, the Commission shall establish a schedule in 
     accordance with the rule issued by the Commission under 
     subsection (c). The Commission shall publicly notice and 
     transmit the final schedule to the applicant and each agency 
     and Indian tribe identified under subsection (b)(2)(B).
       ``(2) Response.--Each agency and Indian tribe receiving a 
     schedule under this subsection shall acknowledge receipt of 
     such schedule in writing to the Commission within 30 days.
       ``(e) Adherence to Schedule.--All applicants, other 
     licensing participants, and agencies and Indian tribes 
     considering an aspect of an application for a Federal 
     authorization shall meet the deadlines set forth in the 
     schedule established pursuant to subsection (d)(1).
       ``(f) Application Processing.--The Commission, Federal, 
     State, and local government agencies, and Indian tribes may 
     allow an applicant seeking a Federal authorization to fund a 
     third-party contractor selected by such an agency or tribe to 
     assist in reviewing the application. All costs of an agency 
     or tribe incurred pursuant to direct funding by the 
     applicant, including all costs associated with the third 
     party contractor, shall not be considered costs of the United 
     States for the administration of this part under section 
     10(e).
       ``(g) Commission Recommendation on Scope of Environmental 
     Review.--For the purposes of coordinating Federal 
     authorizations for each license under this part, the 
     Commission shall consult with and make a recommendation to 
     agencies and Indian tribes receiving a schedule under 
     subsection (d) on the scope of the environmental review for 
     all Federal authorizations for such license. Each Federal and 
     State agency and Indian tribe shall give due consideration 
     and may give deference to the Commission's recommendations, 
     to the extent appropriate under Federal law.
       ``(h) Extension of Deadline.--
       ``(1) Application.--A Federal, State, or local government 
     agency or Indian tribe that is unable to complete its 
     disposition of a Federal authorization by the deadline set 
     forth in the schedule established under subsection (d)(1) 
     shall, not later than 30 days prior to such deadline, file 
     for an extension with the Commission.
       ``(2) Extension.--The Commission shall only grant an 
     extension filed for under paragraph (1) if the agency or 
     Indian tribe demonstrates, based on the record maintained 
     under subsection (i), that complying with the schedule 
     established under subsection (d)(1) would prevent the agency 
     or tribe from complying with applicable Federal or State law. 
     If the Commission grants the extension, the Commission shall 
     set a reasonable schedule and deadline, that is not later 
     than 90 days after the deadline set forth in the schedule 
     established under subsection (d)(1), for the agency or tribe 
     to complete its disposition of the Federal authorization.
       ``(i) Consolidated Record.--The Commission shall, with the 
     cooperation of Federal, State, and local government agencies 
     and Indian tribes, maintain a complete consolidated record of 
     all decisions made or actions taken by the Commission or by a 
     Federal administrative agency or officer (or State or local 
     government agency or officer or Indian tribe acting under 
     delegated Federal authority) with respect to any Federal 
     authorization. Such record shall constitute the record for 
     judicial review under section 313(b).
       ``(j) Submission of License Recommendations, Conditions, 
     and Prescriptions.--
       ``(1) Submission of recommendations.--Any Federal or State 
     agency that is providing recommendations with respect to a 
     license proceeding under this part shall submit to the 
     Commission for inclusion in the consolidated record relating 
     to the license proceeding maintained under subsection (i)--
       ``(A) the recommendations;
       ``(B) the rationale for the recommendations; and
       ``(C) any supporting materials relating to the 
     recommendations.
       ``(2) Written statement.--In a case in which a Federal 
     agency is making a determination with respect to a covered 
     measure (as defined in section 35(a)), the head of the 
     Federal agency shall submit to the Commission for inclusion 
     in the consolidated record, in addition to the information 
     required under paragraph (1), a written statement 
     demonstrating that the Federal agency gave equal 
     consideration to the effects of the covered measure on--
       ``(A) energy supply, distribution, cost, and use;
       ``(B) flood control;
       ``(C) navigation;
       ``(D) water supply; and
       ``(E) air quality and the preservation of other aspects of 
     environmental quality.
       ``(3) Information from other agencies.--In preparing a 
     written statement under paragraph (2), the head of a Federal 
     agency may make use of information produced or made available 
     by other agencies with relevant expertise in the factors 
     described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of that paragraph.
       ``(k) Delegation.--A Secretary may delegate the authority 
     to determine a condition to be necessary under section 4(e), 
     or to prescribe a fishway under section 18, to an officer of 
     the applicable department based, in part, on the ability of 
     the officer to evaluate the broad effects of such condition 
     or prescription on--
       ``(1) the applicable project; and
       ``(2) the factors described in subparagraphs (A) through 
     (E) of subsection (j)(2).
       ``(l) No Effect on Other Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to affect any requirement of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act, the Fish and Wildlife 
     Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 
     14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the Rivers 
     and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899), and those provisions 
     in subtitle III of title 54, United States Code commonly 
     known as the National Historic Preservation Act, with respect 
     to an application for a license under this part.

     ``SEC. 35. TRIAL-TYPE HEARINGS.

       ``(a) Definition of Covered Measure.--In this section, the 
     term `covered measure' means--
       ``(1) a condition determined to be necessary under section 
     4(e), including an alternative condition proposed under 
     section 33(a);
       ``(2) fishways prescribed under section 18, including an 
     alternative prescription proposed under section 33(b); or
       ``(3) any action by the Secretary to exercise reserved 
     authority under the license to prescribe, submit, or revise 
     any condition to a license under the first proviso of section 
     4(e) or fishway prescribed under section 18.
       ``(b) Authorization of Trial-type Hearing.--An applicant 
     for a license under this part (including an applicant for a 
     license under section 15) and any party to a license 
     proceeding shall be entitled to a determination on the 
     record, after opportunity for a trial-type hearing of not 
     more than 120 days, on any disputed issues of material fact 
     with respect to an applicable covered measure.
       ``(c) Deadline for Request.--A request for a trial-type 
     hearing under this section shall be submitted not later than 
     60 days after the date on which, as applicable--
       ``(1) the Secretary determines the condition to be 
     necessary under section 4(e) or prescribes the fishway under 
     section 18; or
       ``(2) the Secretary exercises reserved authority under the 
     license to prescribe, submit, or revise any condition to a 
     license under the first proviso of section 4(e) or fishway 
     prescribed under section 18, as appropriate.
       ``(d) No Requirement to Exhaust.--By electing not to 
     request a trial-type hearing under subsection (c), a license 
     applicant and any other party to a license proceeding shall 
     not be considered to have waived the right of the applicant 
     or other party to raise any issue of fact or law in a non-
     trial-type proceeding, but no issue may be raised for the 
     first time on rehearing or judicial review of the license 
     decision of the Commission.
       ``(e) Administrative Law Judge.--
       ``(1) In general.--All disputed issues of material fact 
     raised by a party in a request for a trial-type hearing 
     submitted under subsection (c) shall be determined in a 
     single trial-type hearing to be conducted by an 
     Administrative Law Judge within the Office of Administrative 
     Law Judges and Dispute Resolution of the Commission, in 
     accordance with the Commission rules of practice and 
     procedure under part 385 of title 18, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or successor regulations), and within the 
     timeframe established by the Commission for each license 
     proceeding (including a proceeding for a license under 
     section 15) under section 34(d).
       ``(2) Requirement.--The trial-type hearing shall include 
     the opportunity--

[[Page H8632]]

       ``(A) to undertake discovery; and
       ``(B) to cross-examine witnesses, as applicable.
       ``(f) Stay.--The Administrative Law Judge may impose a stay 
     of a trial-type hearing under this section for a period of 
     not more than 120 days to facilitate settlement negotiations 
     relating to resolving the disputed issues of material fact 
     with respect to the covered measure.
       ``(g) Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.--
       ``(1) Contents.--The decision of the Administrative Law 
     Judge shall contain--
       ``(A) findings of fact on all disputed issues of material 
     fact;
       ``(B) conclusions of law necessary to make the findings of 
     fact, including rulings on materiality and the admissibility 
     of evidence; and
       ``(C) reasons for the findings and conclusions.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The decision of the Administrative Law 
     Judge shall not contain conclusions as to whether--
       ``(A) any condition or prescription should be adopted, 
     modified, or rejected; or
       ``(B) any alternative condition or prescription should be 
     adopted, modified, or rejected.
       ``(3) Finality.--A decision of an Administrative Law Judge 
     under this section with respect to a disputed issue of 
     material fact shall not be subject to further administrative 
     review.
       ``(4) Service.--The Administrative Law Judge shall serve 
     the decision on each party to the hearing and forward the 
     complete record of the hearing to the Commission and the 
     Secretary that proposed the original condition or 
     prescription.
       ``(h) Secretarial Determination.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date on 
     which the Administrative Law Judge issues the decision under 
     subsection (g) and in accordance with any applicable schedule 
     established by the Commission under section 34(d), the 
     Secretary proposing a covered measure shall file with the 
     Commission a final determination to adopt, modify, or 
     withdraw any condition or prescription that was the subject 
     of a hearing under this section, based on the decision of the 
     Administrative Law Judge.
       ``(2) Record of determination.--The final determination of 
     the Secretary filed with the Commission shall identify the 
     reasons for the decision and any considerations taken into 
     account that were not part of, or were inconsistent with, the 
     findings of the Administrative Law Judge and shall be 
     included in the consolidated record maintained under section 
     34(i).
       ``(i) Resolution of Matters.--Notwithstanding sections 4(e) 
     and 18, if the Commission finds that a final determination 
     under (h)(1) of the Secretary is inconsistent with the 
     purposes of this part or other applicable law, the Commission 
     may enter into a memorandum of understanding with the 
     Secretary to facilitate interagency coordination and resolve 
     the matter.
       ``(j) Judicial Review.--The decision of the Administrative 
     Law Judge and the record of determination of the Secretary 
     shall be included in the record of the applicable licensing 
     proceeding and subject to judicial review of the final 
     licensing decision of the Commission under section 313(b).

     ``SEC. 36. LICENSING STUDY IMPROVEMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--To facilitate the timely and efficient 
     completion of the license proceedings under this part, the 
     Commission shall, in consultation with applicable Federal and 
     State agencies and interested members of the public--
       ``(1) compile current and accepted best practices in 
     performing studies required in such license proceedings, 
     including methodologies and the design of studies to assess 
     the full range of environmental impacts of a project that 
     reflect the most recent peer-reviewed science;
       ``(2) compile a comprehensive collection of studies and 
     data accessible to the public that could be used to inform 
     license proceedings under this part; and
       ``(3) encourage license applicants, agencies, and Indian 
     tribes to develop and use, for the purpose of fostering 
     timely and efficient consideration of license applications, a 
     limited number of open-source methodologies and tools 
     applicable across a wide array of projects, including water 
     balance models and streamflow analyses.
       ``(b) Use of Studies.--To the extent practicable, the 
     Commission and other Federal, State, and local government 
     agencies and Indian tribes considering an aspect of an 
     application for Federal authorization (as defined in section 
     34) shall use studies and data based on current, accepted 
     science in support of their actions. Any participant in a 
     proceeding with respect to such a Federal authorization shall 
     demonstrate that a study requested by the participant is not 
     duplicative of current, existing studies that are applicable 
     to the project.
       ``(c) Intra-watershed Review.--The Commission shall 
     establish a program to develop comprehensive plans, at the 
     request of project applicants, on a watershed-wide scale, in 
     consultation with the applicants, appropriate Federal 
     agencies, and affected States, local governments, and Indian 
     tribes, in watersheds with respect to which there are more 
     than one application for a project. Upon such a request, the 
     Commission, in consultation with the applicants, such Federal 
     agencies, and affected States, local governments, and Indian 
     tribes, may conduct or commission watershed-wide 
     environmental studies, with the participation of at least 2 
     applicants. Any study conducted under this subsection shall 
     apply only to a project with respect to which the applicants 
     participate.

     ``SEC. 37. LICENSE AMENDMENT IMPROVEMENTS.

       ``(a) Qualifying Project Upgrades.--
       ``(1) In general.--As provided in this section, the 
     Commission may approve an application under this section for 
     an amendment to a license issued under this part for a 
     qualifying project upgrade.
       ``(2) Application.--A licensee filing an application for an 
     amendment to a project license, for which the licensee is 
     seeking approval as a qualified project upgrade under this 
     section, shall include in such application information 
     sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed change to the 
     project described in the application is a qualifying project 
     upgrade.
       ``(3) Notice and initial determination on qualification.--
     Not later than 30 days after receipt of an application under 
     paragraph (2), the Commission, in consultation with other 
     Federal agencies, States, and Indian tribes the Commission 
     determines appropriate, shall publish in the Federal Register 
     a notice containing--
       ``(A) notice of the application filed under paragraph (2);
       ``(B) an initial determination as to whether the proposed 
     change to the project described in the application for a 
     license amendment is a qualifying project upgrade; and
       ``(C) a request for public comment on the application and 
     the initial determination.
       ``(4) Public comment and consultation.--The Commission 
     shall, for a period of 45 days beginning on the date of 
     publication of a notice under paragraph (3)--
       ``(A) accept public comment regarding the application and 
     whether the proposed license amendment is for a qualifying 
     project upgrade; and
       ``(B) consult with each Federal, State, and local 
     government agency and Indian tribe considering an aspect of 
     an application for any authorization required under Federal 
     law with respect to the proposed license amendment, as well 
     as other interested agencies and Indian tribes.
       ``(5) Final determination on qualification.--Not later than 
     15 days after the end of the public comment and consultation 
     period under paragraph (4), the Commission shall publish in 
     the Federal Register a final determination as to whether the 
     proposed license amendment is for a qualifying project 
     upgrade.
       ``(6) Federal authorizations.--In establishing the schedule 
     for a proposed license amendment for a qualifying project 
     upgrade, the Commission shall require final disposition of 
     all authorizations required under Federal law with respect to 
     an application for such license amendment, other than final 
     action by the Commission, by not later than 120 days after 
     the date on which the Commission publishes a final 
     determination under paragraph (5) that the proposed license 
     amendment is for a qualifying project upgrade.
       ``(7) Commission action.--Not later than 150 days after the 
     date on which the Commission publishes a final determination 
     under paragraph (5) that a proposed license amendment is for 
     a qualifying project upgrade, the Commission shall take final 
     action on the license amendment application.
       ``(8) License amendment conditions.--Any condition or 
     prescription included in or applicable to a license amendment 
     for a qualifying project upgrade approved under this 
     subsection, including any condition, prescription, or other 
     requirement of a Federal authorization, shall be limited to 
     those that are--
       ``(A) necessary to protect public safety; or
       ``(B) reasonable, economically feasible, and essential to 
     prevent loss of or damage to, or to mitigate adverse effects 
     on, fish and wildlife resources, water supply, and water 
     quality that are directly caused by the construction and 
     operation of the qualifying project upgrade, as compared to 
     the environmental baseline existing at the time the 
     Commission approves the application for the license 
     amendment.
       ``(9) Rulemaking.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Commission shall, after 
     notice and opportunity for public comment, issue a rule to 
     implement this subsection.
       ``(10) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) Qualifying project upgrade.--The term `qualifying 
     project upgrade' means a change to a project licensed under 
     this part that meets the qualifying criteria, as determined 
     by the Commission.
       ``(B) Qualifying criteria.--The term `qualifying criteria' 
     means, with respect to a project licensed under this part, a 
     change to the project that--
       ``(i) if carried out, would be unlikely to adversely affect 
     any species listed as threatened or endangered under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 or result in the destruction 
     or adverse modification of critical habitat, as determined in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Interior or Secretary 
     of Commerce, as appropriate, in accordance with section 7 of 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973;
       ``(ii) is consistent with any applicable comprehensive plan 
     under section 10(a)(2);
       ``(iii) includes only changes to project lands, waters, or 
     operations that, in the judgment of the Commission, would 
     result in only insignificant or minimal cumulative adverse 
     environmental effects;
       ``(iv) would be unlikely to adversely affect water quality 
     or water supply; and
       ``(v) proposes to implement--

       ``(I) capacity increases, efficiency improvements, or other 
     enhancements to hydropower generation at the licensed 
     project;
       ``(II) environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement 
     measures to benefit fish and wildlife resources or other 
     natural and cultural resources; or
       ``(III) improvements to public recreation at the licensed 
     project.

       ``(b) Amendment Approval Processes.--
       ``(1) Rule.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Commission shall, after notice 
     and opportunity for public comment, issue a rule establishing 
     new standards and procedures for license amendment 
     applications under this part. In issuing such rule, the 
     Commission shall seek to develop

[[Page H8633]]

     the most efficient and expedient process, consultation, and 
     review requirements, commensurate with the scope of different 
     categories of proposed license amendments. Such rule shall 
     account for differences in environmental effects across a 
     wide range of categories of license amendment applications.
       ``(2) Capacity.--In issuing a rule under this subsection, 
     the Commission shall take into consideration that a change in 
     generating or hydraulic capacity may indicate the potential 
     environmental effects of a proposed license amendment but is 
     not determinative of such effects.
       ``(3) Process options.--In issuing a rule under this 
     subsection, the Commission shall take into consideration the 
     range of process options available under the Commission's 
     regulations for license applications and adapt such options 
     to amendment applications, where appropriate.''.

     SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Licenses.--Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 797(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``adequate protection and utilization of 
     such reservation'' and all that follows through ``That no 
     license affecting the navigable capacity'' and inserting 
     ``adequate protection and utilization of such reservation: 
     Provided further, That no license affecting the navigable 
     capacity''; and
       (2) by striking ``deem'' and inserting ``determine''.
       (b) Operation of Navigation Facilities.--Section 18 of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 811) is amended by striking the 
     second, third, and fourth sentences.

  The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House 
Report 115-391. 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. Grothman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 115-391.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, as the designee of my friend and colleague, 
Mr. Pocan, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 5. CONSIDERATION OF INVASIVE SPECIES.

       Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 811) is 
     amended by inserting after ``the Secretary of Commerce.'' the 
     following: ``In prescribing a fishway, the Secretary of 
     Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior, as appropriate, 
     shall consider the threat of invasive species.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 607, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, first of all, I would like to thank the 
chair and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this 
bill forward.
  This amendment, which is supported by colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, is pretty simple. It requires Federal decisionmakers in the 
Department of the Interior to consider the threat of invasive species 
when installing fishways.
  This was brought to my attention while looking at a dam on the 
Wisconsin River in Wisconsin. Below that dam, we had Asian carp, an 
invasive species, a huge fish. If that fish was able to get further 
north on the Wisconsin River, because of a fishway, you could wind up 
with this invasive species not only in the northern part of the river, 
but, and quite frankly, in dozens of lakes throughout northern 
Wisconsin.
  As a matter of fact, given where that dam is, if there is even 
flooding, that invasive species could wind up working its way into Lake 
Michigan and up the Saint Lawrence Seaway. It is very important that 
before the Department of the Interior listens to certain 
environmentalists, they realize that a fishway at this dam would result 
in big trouble.
  Because of the devastating effects invasive species can have on the 
environment, local fish population, and the economy, this amendment 
will ensure the Federal agencies take into account all consequences 
before installing fishways.
  Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from Alliant Energy.

                                               Alliant Energy,

                                                 November 8, 2017.
     Hon. Mark Pocan,
     Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Glenn Grothman,
     Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Pocan and Grothman: I am writing in 
     strong support of your invasive species amendment to H.R. 
     3043, the Hydropower Modernization Act of 2017, which is due 
     to be considered on the floor of the U.S. House today. 
     Alliant Energy deeply appreciates your commitment to this 
     pro-environment measure, and for protecting Wisconsin's 
     watersheds.
       As you know, an Alliant subsidiary, Wisconsin Power and 
     Light, owns and operates a dam located in Prairie du Sac, 
     Wisconsin, on the Wisconsin River. The Prairie du Sac dam, 
     now over 100 years old, is responsible for the formation of 
     Lake Wisconsin, which serves as an enormous recreational and 
     wildlife resource for our state.
       Over a decade ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
     sought to impose a fishway requirement on the license for the 
     dam, essentially calling for a ``fishway'' to be installed to 
     allow for the upstream migration of native fish. Since that 
     time, however, scientists and state officials have discovered 
     the existence of non-native, invasive fish species (Asian 
     carp) at the base of the dam. If a fishway were now 
     installed, it seems clear that these invasive species would 
     also be able to migrate--and thereby endanger native fish 
     populations upstream, including Lake Wisconsin.
       Your amendment would ensure that, in this particular case, 
     the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be required to 
     consider the threats posed by invasive species before 
     imposing a fishway condition on a hydroelectric license. We 
     believe strongly that such decisions should be predicated on 
     the most up to date information available, and your amendment 
     will help guarantee that invasive species are not permitted 
     to threaten the Lake Wisconsin watershed.
       Again, thank you for offering your amendment. Please let me 
     know how Alliant may assist you in ushering this much-needed 
     provision into public law.
           Sincerely,

                                                David de Leon,

                             Vice President Operations--Wisconsin,
                                                   Alliant Energy.

  Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I just want to say that this is a very good 
amendment. It is bipartisan. It is critical that--I know our Great 
Lakes Caucus, on a bipartisan basis, in both bodies, the House and 
Senate, have taken strong actions against the Asian carp.
  This is a good amendment. We are certainly prepared to accept it, and 
I commend you for taking the time on the floor.
  Ms. MOORE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from the Badger State 
for yielding to me. I am so pleased to join him, along with 
Representative Mark Pocan, in support of this amendment.
  It is critical, Mr. Chairman. Wisconsinites value our natural 
resources like no other. The Great Lakes are an immense source of 
regional pride as well as a great economic engine for our region, and 
we know that these resources are constantly under attack from a variety 
of threats. One particularly nefarious threat is invasive species.
  My colleagues and I are all aware of the costs these species impose. 
These costs are something that, unfortunately, the Great Lakes region 
knows too well. From the sea lamprey to the zebra mussel, to the 
carnivorous Asian carp now advancing toward the region, we have spent 
hundreds of millions of dollars dealing with the damage created when 
these invasive and nuisance species get into the Great Lakes ecosystem; 
and keeping them out of the Great Lakes in the first place is the most 
effective strategy.
  A stitch in time saves nine, so I am pleased that this is a 
bipartisan amendment. I want to emphasize that the amendment does not 
predetermine any particular outcome or decision.
  There is no magic bullet, Mr. Chairman, to the problem of invasive 
species given that there are so many pathways for them to get into a 
body of water, including through ballast water, but this commonsense 
amendment gives us a more effective tool in that fight.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Mr. RUSH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

[[Page H8634]]

  

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, the minority side is prepared to accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Babin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 115-391.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 5. EXAMINATION OF LICENSES FOR PROJECTS LOCATED IN 
                   DISASTER AREAS.

       Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may examine the 
     license issued by the Commission under part I of the Federal 
     Power Act for any project that is located in an area that was 
     declared by the President to be a disaster area in 2017.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 607, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Babin) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, when a disaster like Hurricane Harvey 
strikes, the most important job we have is to assist those in harm's 
way.
  From the Texas National Guard to the Louisiana Cajun Navy, to 
countless volunteers and citizens who have volunteered and contributed 
their time, their money, and their prayers, we saw across southeast 
Texas, in the immediate aftermath of that storm, nothing less than a 
model to which the whole Nation and world can aspire.
  I have even compared the rescue of so many Texans by boat to the 
miracle at Dunkirk.
  But when the storm passes, it is just as important that we look for 
lessons, demand accountability, and work to fix whatever went wrong or 
may have made this situation worse.
  I am pleased to offer this amendment today that will begin to address 
such an issue.
  When a hydropower station is licensed and regulated by FERC, it is 
not just the power plant that falls under Federal control. Decisions 
about lake levels, flood storage capacity, and other measurements of 
the body of water that powers that station are set forth in FERC 
license protocols and guidelines written and administered by folks who 
work right here in Washington.

                              {time}  1500

  As a former official for the Texas Lower Neches Valley River 
Authority, I know that these are tough decisions to make, and sometimes 
it is a matter of choosing between bad and worse options of where to 
put all of that water.
  But in my district, serious concerns have been raised by my 
constituents and local river authorities about whether FERC's licenses 
for hydropower facilities need to be adjusted to account for the 
unprecedented flooding that we just experienced and with the ability to 
make commonsense changes in the face of an impending flood event.
  My amendment ensures that nothing will stand in the way of FERC going 
in and examining the licenses for any facility located in the path of 
the terrible disasters that we have seen this year. By passing it with 
strong bipartisan support, we will make clear that that is just what 
FERC should do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and introduce someone who is now famous in 
Texas, Uncle Fred Upton, now that the Astros have won the World Series.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, 
yes, I do have, now, extended family in Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, this is another tool in the toolbox for FERC. We want 
to make sure that areas are protected that have survived, somehow, 
these terrible hurricanes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to 
support this good amendment.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), my next-door neighbor and 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
amendment No. 2 to the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, 
offered by my friend, Representative Babin of Texas.
  My colleague's amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, is a commonsense 
addition to this important piece of legislation, which will allow the 
government to take more reasonable steps to mitigate the damages of 
flooding and hurricanes.
  Mr. Chairman, I participated in rescue operations in Texas in the 
immediate wake of Hurricane Harvey. The last rescue I personally 
responded to was early on Friday, around 1 or 2 in the morning, less 
than 2 days after Harvey's landfall.
  The elderly gentleman we rescued told me something I will never 
forget. With tears in his eyes, he said: Sir, I have lived in my home 
since 1968 and it never flooded. In 50 years, I have seen this much 
water fall, but I have never seen this much water rise.
  Mr. Chairman, no one in this body batted an eye when we approved 
hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency appropriations relief to 
the victims of this year's hurricane season. It is time we as the 
people's House move past the reactionary era of addressing the need to 
repeal and rebuild after natural disasters and start focusing on 
proactive solutions to mitigate potential damage before natural 
disasters.
  A proactive spirit should be fully implemented in our regulations and 
how we invest in infrastructure. If we had invested, over the last few 
decades, just a small percentage of the people's treasure that we have 
granted postdisaster as emergency relief appropriations into 
premitigation efforts, such as the cleaning and maintenance of our 
existing water management systems, both natural and man-made, much of 
the resulting damage would not have occurred and many fewer American 
families would have suffered.
  Representative Babin's amendment will allow a procedural tool for the 
FERC to review licenses for any project located in a region declared by 
the President to be a disaster area, which will allow us to better and 
more strategically manage our dams, floodgates, and reservoirs when we 
know storms like Hurricane Harvey are imminent.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Babin for introducing this 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this commonsense solution, as well as the underlying bill.
  Mr. RUSH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BABIN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the minority is prepared to accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Estes of Kansas). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Jenkins of West Virginia

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in House Report 115-391.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at 
the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 5. STUDIES FOR NON-FEDERAL HYDROPOWER.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission has in place a memorandum of 
     understanding with another Federal agency for non-federal 
     hydropower with respect to a project licensed under part I of 
     the Federal Power Act (regardless of explicit Congressional 
     authorization for such non-federal hydropower), the other 
     Federal agency may fully study and review the potential 
     expansion of such non-federal hydropower at the project, 
     including a review of seasonal pool levels and slowing flood 
     releases.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 607, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.

[[Page H8635]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very 
straightforward. It supports the mission of the underlying bill to 
responsibly increase opportunities for hydropower across the Nation.
  My amendment authorizes agencies with an existing memorandum of 
understanding with FERC to study the expansion of hydropower. The need 
for this arises from a project in my district in Summersville, West 
Virginia. There is what is called a run-of-the-river hydroelectric 
project in Summersville. There is an MOU between the town--the city of 
Summersville--FERC, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
  The Summersville hydro project was actually licensed by FERC in 1992 
and constructed in 2001, with the cooperation of the Army Corps of 
Engineers. It provides enough renewable energy to power 22,000 homes. 
It might be possible to increase hydropower by adjusting the seasonable 
pool levels and managing the releases. Even if this is only for just a 
few days, it could result in a 15 percent increase in power generation 
for the surrounding community.
  Unfortunately, I have heard that even to conduct a study requires 
explicit authorization from Congress. So that is what we are doing here 
today with this amendment. This amendment would provide that authority, 
and only in limited cases where there is an existing MOU on the books 
between the agencies and FERC.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from West Virginia for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that allows for a study of the 
potential to expand non-Federal hydropower projects in Federal dams. It 
is a good amendment. I support it, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. RUSH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the minority is prepared to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the minority very 
much for their support on this and, again, to the chair, for his 
leadership on this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, let me close by thanking specifically a couple of 
individuals:
  Jim Price, who has been integrally related and involved with this 
project from its inception, and I appreciate his leadership so much.
  Enel Green Power North America, the operator and developer on this 
project. I thank them for their efforts.
  Also, the mayor of the city of Summersville, Robert Shafer. I thank 
Bob Shafer for his incredible support and leadership in the city of 
Summersville.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage support for this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Rush

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 115-391.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Hydropower Policy 
     Modernization Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. HYDROPOWER REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Sense of Congress on the Use of Hydropower Renewable 
     Resources.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) hydropower is a renewable resource for purposes of all 
     Federal programs and is an essential source of energy in the 
     United States; and
       (2) the United States should increase substantially the 
     capacity and generation of clean, renewable hydropower that 
     would improve environmental quality in the United States.
       (b) Modifying the Definition of Renewable Energy to Include 
     Hydropower.--Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 
     U.S.C. 15852) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by amending paragraphs (1) through 
     (3) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Not less than 17 percent in fiscal years 2017 through 
     2019.
       ``(2) Not less than 20 percent in fiscal years 2020 through 
     2024.
       ``(3) Not less than 25 percent in fiscal year 2025 and each 
     fiscal year thereafter.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Renewable energy.--The term `renewable energy' means 
     electric energy generated from solar, wind, biomass, landfill 
     gas, ocean (including tidal, wave, current, and thermal), 
     geothermal, or municipal solid waste, or from a hydropower 
     project.''.
       (c) Preliminary Permits.--Section 5 of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 798) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``three'' and inserting 
     ``4''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) The Commission may--
       ``(1) extend the period of a preliminary permit once for 
     not more than 4 additional years beyond the 4 years permitted 
     by subsection (a) if the Commission finds that the permittee 
     has carried out activities under such permit in good faith 
     and with reasonable diligence; and
       ``(2) if the period of a preliminary permit is extended 
     under paragraph (1), extend the period of such preliminary 
     permit once for not more than 4 additional years beyond the 
     extension period granted under paragraph (1), if the 
     Commission determines that there are extraordinary 
     circumstances that warrant such additional extension.''.
       (d) Time Limit for Construction of Project Works.--Section 
     13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) is amended in the 
     second sentence by striking ``once but not longer than two 
     additional years'' and inserting ``for not more than 8 
     additional years,''.
       (e) Considerations for Relicensing Terms.--Section 15(e) of 
     the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 808(e)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(e) Except'' and inserting the following:
       ``(e) License Term on Relicensing.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Consideration.--In determining the term of a license 
     under paragraph (1), the Commission shall consider project-
     related investments by the licensee over the term of the 
     existing license (including any terms under annual licenses) 
     that resulted in new development, construction, capacity, 
     efficiency improvements, or environmental measures, but which 
     did not result in the extension of the term of the license by 
     the Commission.''.

     SEC. 3. HYDROPOWER LICENSING AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Hydropower Licensing and Process Improvements.--Part I 
     of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 34. HYDROPOWER LICENSING AND PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS.

       ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `Federal 
     authorization'--
       ``(1) means any authorization required under Federal law 
     with respect to an application for a license under this part; 
     and
       ``(2) includes any conditions, prescriptions, permits, 
     special use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or 
     other approvals as may be required under Federal law to 
     approve or implement the license under this part.
       ``(b) Designation as Lead Agency.--The Commission shall act 
     as the lead agency for the purposes of complying with the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) with respect to an application for a license under this 
     part.
       ``(c) Rulemaking to Establish Process to Set Schedule.--
       ``(1) Negotiated rulemaking.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this section the Commission, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall enter into a negotiated rulemaking 
     pursuant to subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 5, United 
     States Code, to develop and publish a rule providing a 
     process for the Commission to evaluate, and issue a final 
     decision on, a completed application for a license under this 
     part.
       ``(2) Negotiated rulemaking committee.--The negotiated 
     rulemaking committee established pursuant to the negotiated 
     rulemaking process entered into under paragraph (1) shall 
     include representatives of State and Indian tribal 
     governments, and other stakeholders who will be significantly 
     affected by a rule issued under this subsection.
       ``(3) Deadlines.--
       ``(A) Proposed rule.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Commission shall publish a 
     proposed rule resulting from the negotiated rulemaking under 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) Final rule.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Commission shall publish a 
     final rule resulting from the negotiated rulemaking under 
     this subsection.
       ``(4) Elements of rule.--In publishing a rule under this 
     subsection, the Commission shall ensure that--
       ``(A) the rule includes a description of the Commission's 
     responsibility as the lead agency in coordinating Federal 
     authorizations;

[[Page H8636]]

       ``(B) the rule includes a process for development of a 
     schedule for the review and disposition of a completed 
     application for a license under this part;
       ``(C) each schedule developed pursuant to such process 
     shall--
       ``(i) include deadlines for actions on the applicable 
     completed application--

       ``(I) that are consistent with the duties of each agency 
     under this Act and under applicable State, tribal, and other 
     Federal laws; and
       ``(II) by--

       ``(aa) each Federal agency responsible for a Federal 
     authorization;
       ``(bb) each State agency, local government, or Indian tribe 
     that may consider an aspect of an application for a Federal 
     authorization or is responsible for conducting any separate 
     permitting and environmental reviews of the applicable 
     project;
       ``(cc) the applicant;
       ``(dd) the Commission; and
       ``(ee) other participants in a license proceeding;
       ``(ii) facilitate the identification and completion of 
     Federal, State, and tribal agency-requested studies, reviews, 
     and any other procedures required to be conducted prior to, 
     or concurrent with, the preparation of the Commission's 
     environmental review required under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), to 
     the extent practicable; and
       ``(iii) provide for a final decision on the applicable 
     completed application to be made by not later than 3 years 
     after the date on which the Commission receives such 
     completed application;
       ``(D) the rule includes a mechanism for resolving issues of 
     concern that may delay the completion of a license 
     application or review of a completed application;
       ``(E) the rule includes a definition of a completed 
     application; and
       ``(F) the rule provides for an opportunity for public 
     notice and comment on--
       ``(i) a completed application; and
       ``(ii) the schedule developed for the review and 
     disposition of the application.
       ``(d) Application Processing.--The Commission, Federal, 
     State, and local government agencies, and Indian tribes may 
     allow an applicant seeking a Federal authorization to fund a 
     third-party contractor selected by such an agency or tribe to 
     assist in reviewing the application. All costs of an agency 
     or tribe incurred pursuant to direct funding by the 
     applicant, including all costs associated with the third 
     party contractor, shall not be considered costs of the United 
     States for the administration of this part under section 
     10(e).
       ``(e) Issue Resolution.--The Commission may forward any 
     issue of concern that has delayed either the completion of 
     the application or the issuance of a license for a completed 
     application beyond the deadline set forth in the schedule 
     established under the final rule published under subsection 
     (c) to the heads of the relevant State, Federal, or Indian 
     tribal agencies for resolution. If the Commission forwards an 
     issue of concern to the head of a relevant agency, the 
     Commission and the relevant agency shall enter into a 
     memorandum of understanding to facilitate interagency 
     coordination and resolution of the issue of concern, as 
     appropriate.
       ``(f) No Effect on Other Laws.--Nothing in this section--
       ``(1) expands or limits the application of any power or 
     authority vested in an agency, State, or Indian tribe by any 
     applicable law or regulation;
       ``(2) shall be construed to affect any requirements of 
     State, tribal, or other Federal law (including under the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Fish and Wildlife 
     Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 
     14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the Rivers 
     and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899), the Coastal Zone 
     Management Act of 1972, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act, and those provisions in 
     subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, commonly known 
     as the National Historic Preservation Act) with respect to an 
     application for a license under this part; or
       ``(3) abrogates, diminishes, or otherwise affects any 
     treaty or other right of any Indian tribe.

     ``SEC. 35. LICENSING STUDY IMPROVEMENTS.

       ``(a) In General.--To facilitate the timely and efficient 
     completion of the license proceedings under this part, the 
     Commission shall, in consultation with applicable Federal and 
     State agencies and interested members of the public--
       ``(1) compile current and accepted best practices in 
     performing studies required in such license proceedings, 
     including methodologies and the design of studies to assess 
     the full range of environmental impacts of a project that 
     reflect the most recent peer-reviewed science;
       ``(2) compile a comprehensive collection of studies and 
     data accessible to the public that could be used to inform 
     license proceedings under this part; and
       ``(3) encourage license applicants, agencies, and Indian 
     tribes to develop and use, for the purpose of fostering 
     timely and efficient consideration of license applications, a 
     limited number of open-source methodologies and tools 
     applicable across a wide array of projects, including water 
     balance models and streamflow analyses.
       ``(b) Use of Studies.--To the extent practicable, the 
     Commission and other Federal, State, and local government 
     agencies and Indian tribes considering an aspect of an 
     application for Federal authorization (as defined in section 
     34) shall use relevant, existing studies and data and avoid 
     duplicating such studies that are applicable to the project. 
     Studies repeated for the purpose of characterizing seasonal 
     or annual variation of a relevant characteristic or resource 
     shall not be considered duplicative.

     ``SEC. 36. EVALUATION OF EXPEDITED LICENSING FOR QUALIFYING 
                   PROJECT UPGRADES.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Expedited license amendment process.--The term 
     `expedited license amendment process' means an expedited 
     process for issuing an amendment to an existing license 
     issued under this part for a project.
       ``(2) Qualifying project upgrade.--The term `qualifying 
     project upgrade' means a change--
       ``(A) to a project; and
       ``(B) that meets the criteria under subsection (b).
       ``(b) In General.--To improve the regulatory process and 
     reduce the time and cost of making upgrades to existing 
     projects, the Commission shall investigate the feasibility of 
     implementing an expedited license amendment process for a 
     change to a project that meets the following criteria:
       ``(1) The change to the project--
       ``(A) is limited to the power house equipment of the 
     project; or
       ``(B) will result in environmental protection, mitigation, 
     or enhancement measures to benefit fish and wildlife 
     resources or other natural or cultural resources.
       ``(2) The change to the project is unlikely to adversely 
     affect any species listed as threatened or endangered under 
     the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 
     as determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(3) The Commission ensures, in accordance with section 7 
     of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536), that 
     the change to the project will not result in the destruction 
     or modification of critical habitat.
       ``(4) The change to the project is consistent with any 
     applicable comprehensive plan under section 10(a).
       ``(5) The change to the project is unlikely to adversely 
     affect water quality and water supply, as determined in 
     consultation with any applicable State or Indian tribe.
       ``(6) Any adverse environmental effects resulting from the 
     change to the project will be insignificant.
       ``(c) Workshops and Pilots.--The Commission shall--
       ``(1) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this section, hold an initial workshop to solicit public 
     comment and recommendations on how to implement an expedited 
     license amendment process for qualifying project upgrades;
       ``(2) evaluate pending applications for an amendment to an 
     existing license of a project for a qualifying project 
     upgrade that may benefit from an expedited license amendment 
     process;
       ``(3) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
     of this section, identify and solicit participation by 
     project developers in, and begin implementation of, a 3-year 
     pilot program to evaluate the feasibility and utility of an 
     expedited license amendment process for qualifying project 
     upgrades; and
       ``(4) not later than 3 months after the end of the 3-year 
     pilot program under paragraph (3), hold a final workshop to 
     solicit public comment on the expedited license amendment 
     process.
       ``(d) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Commission shall, 
     to the extent practicable, enter into a memorandum of 
     understanding with any applicable Federal, State, or tribal 
     agency to implement the pilot program described in subsection 
     (c).
       ``(e) Reports.--Not later than 3 months after the date of 
     the final workshop held pursuant to subsection (c)(4), the 
     Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that 
     includes--
       ``(1) a summary of the public comments received as part of 
     the initial workshop held under subsection (c)(1);
       ``(2) a summary of the public comments received as part of 
     the final workshop held under subsection (c)(4);
       ``(3) a description of the expedited license amendment 
     process for qualifying project upgrades evaluated under the 
     pilot program, including--
       ``(A) a description of the procedures or requirements that 
     were waived under the expedited license amendment process;
       ``(B) a comparison between--
       ``(i) the average amount of time required to complete the 
     licensing process for an amendment to a license under the 
     expedited license amendment process tested under the pilot 
     program; and
       ``(ii) the average amount of time required to complete the 
     licensing process for a similar amendment to a license under 
     current Commission processes;
       ``(4) the number of requests received by the Commission to 
     participate in the expedited license amendment process for 
     qualifying project upgrades;
       ``(5) a description of changes to Commission rules required 
     to create and standardize an expedited license amendment 
     process for qualifying project upgrades;
       ``(6) a description of factors that prevented any 
     participant in the pilot program from

[[Page H8637]]

     completing the expedited license amendment process in the 
     expedited time frame.
       ``(f) Implementation.--If the Commission determines, based 
     upon the workshops and results of the pilot program under 
     subsection (c), that an expedited license amendment process 
     will reduce the time and costs for issuing amendments to 
     licenses for qualifying project upgrades, the Commission 
     shall revise its policies and regulations, in accordance with 
     applicable law, to establish an expedited license amendment 
     process.
       ``(g) Public Input.--In carrying out subsection (f), the 
     Commission shall solicit and consider public comments before 
     finalizing any change to policies or regulations.''.

     SEC. 4. PILOT PROGRAM FOR CONSOLIDATED LICENSING PROCESS FOR 
                   INTRA-WATERSHED PROJECTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission.
       (2) Project.--The term ``project'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 
     796).
       (b) Initial Workshop.--Not later than 3 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall hold a 
     workshop to solicit public comment and recommendations on how 
     to implement a pilot program described in subsection (c).
       (c) Establishment of Pilot Program.--The Commission shall 
     establish a voluntary pilot program to enable the Commission 
     to consider multiple projects together in a consolidated 
     licensing process in order to issue a license under part I of 
     the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792 et seq.) for each such 
     project.
       (d) Candidate Project Identification.--Not later than 1 
     year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission, 
     in consultation with the head of any applicable Federal or 
     State agency or Indian tribe and licensees, shall identify 
     and solicit candidate projects to participate in the pilot 
     program established under subsection (c). In order to 
     participate in such pilot program a project shall meet the 
     following criteria:
       (1) The current license for the project expires between 
     2019 and 2029 or the project is not licensed under part I of 
     the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792 et seq.).
       (2) The project is located within the same watershed as 
     other projects that are eligible to participate in the pilot 
     program.
       (3) The project is located in sufficiently close proximity 
     and has environmental conditions that are sufficiently 
     similar to other projects that are eligible to participate in 
     the pilot program so that watershed-wide studies and 
     information may be developed, thereby significantly reducing 
     the need for, and scope of, individual project-level studies 
     and information.
       (e) Designation of Individual Projects as a Single Group.--
     The Commission may designate a group of projects to be 
     considered together in a consolidated licensing process under 
     the pilot program established under subsection (c). The 
     Commission may designate such a group only if each licensee 
     (or applicant) for a project in the group, on a voluntary 
     basis and in writing, agrees--
       (1) to participate in the pilot program; and
       (2) to a cost-sharing arrangement with other licensees (or 
     applicants) and applicable Federal and State agencies with 
     respect to the conduct of watershed-wide studies to be 
     considered in support of the license applications for the 
     group of projects.
       (f) Project License Terms.--The Commission may change the 
     term of any existing license for an individual licensee in a 
     group designated under subsection (e) by up to 5 years--
       (1) to provide sufficient time to develop a consolidated 
     study plan for--
       (A) studies for individual projects in the group, as 
     necessary; and
       (B) relevant watershed-wide studies for purposes of the 
     consolidated licensing process under the pilot program 
     established under subsection (c) that will be applicable to 
     each project in the group; and
       (2) to align the terms of the existing licenses such that 
     they expire on the same date.
       (g) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Commission shall, to 
     the extent practicable, enter into a memorandum of 
     understanding with any applicable Federal or State agency or 
     Indian tribe to implement the pilot program established under 
     subsection (c).
       (h) Initial Report.--Not later than 3 months after the date 
     of the initial workshop held pursuant to subsection (b), the 
     Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that 
     includes--
       (1) a summary of the public comments received as part of 
     such initial workshop; and
       (2) a preliminary plan for identifying and soliciting 
     participants in the pilot program established under 
     subsection (c).
       (i) Interim Report.--Not later than 4 years after the 
     establishment of the pilot program under subsection (c), the 
     Commission shall submit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that 
     includes--
       (1) a description of the status of the pilot program, 
     including a description of the individual projects that are 
     participating in the pilot program and the watersheds in 
     which such projects are located; or
       (2) if no projects are participating in the pilot program, 
     a summary of any barriers the Commission has identified to 
     proceeding with the pilot program and the reasons provided by 
     potential participants for their preference for using an 
     individual license process.

     SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS AND COOPERATION.

       Part I of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 792 et seq.) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 37. INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS AND COOPERATION.

       ``(a) Ex Parte Communications.--Interagency communications 
     relating to the preparation of environmental documents under 
     the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 
     et seq.) with respect to an application for a license under 
     this part, or to the licensing process for a license under 
     this part, shall not be considered to be ex parte 
     communications under Commission rules.
       ``(b) Participation in Proceedings.--Interagency 
     cooperation, at any time, in the preparation of environmental 
     documents under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to an application for a 
     license under this part, or in the licensing process for a 
     license under this part, shall not preclude an agency from 
     participating in a licensing proceeding under this part.
       ``(c) Separation of Staff.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), 
     to the extent the Commission determines necessary, the 
     Commission may require Federal and State agencies 
     participating as cooperating agencies under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to 
     demonstrate a separation of staff that are cooperating with 
     the Commission with respect to a proceeding under this part 
     from staff that may participate in an intervention in the 
     applicable proceeding.''.

     SEC. 6. HYDROELECTRIC PRODUCTION INCENTIVES AND EFFICIENCY 
                   IMPROVEMENTS.

       (a) Hydroelectric Production Incentives.--Section 242 of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15881) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``10'' and inserting 
     ``20'';
       (2) in subsection (f), by striking ``20'' and inserting 
     ``30''; and
       (3) in subsection (g), by striking ``each of the fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2015'' and inserting ``each of fiscal 
     years 2017 through 2026''.
       (b) Hydroelectric Efficiency Improvement.--Section 243(c) 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15882(c)) is 
     amended by striking ``each of the fiscal years 2006 through 
     2015'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 2017 through 
     2026''.''.

     SEC. 7. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Alternative Conditions.--Section 33(a)(2)(B) of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 823d(a)(2)(B)) is amended, in 
     the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting ``deemed 
     necessary'' before ``by the Secretary''.
       (b) Licenses.--Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 797(e)) is amended by striking ``adequate protection 
     and utilization of such reservation'' and all that follows 
     through ``That no license affecting the navigable capacity'' 
     and inserting ``adequate protection and utilization of such 
     reservation. The license applicant and any party to the 
     proceeding shall be entitled to a determination on the 
     record, after opportunity for an agency trial-type hearing of 
     no more than 90 days, on any disputed issues of material fact 
     with respect to such conditions. All disputed issues of 
     material fact raised by any party shall be determined in a 
     single trial-type hearing to be conducted by the relevant 
     resource agency in accordance with the regulations 
     promulgated under this subsection and within the time frame 
     established by the Commission for each license proceeding. 
     Within 90 days of the date of enactment of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005, the Secretaries of the Interior, Commerce, and 
     Agriculture shall establish jointly, by rule, the procedures 
     for such expedited trial-type hearing, including the 
     opportunity to undertake discovery and cross-examine 
     witnesses, in consultation with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission: Provided further, That no license affecting the 
     navigable capacity''.

     SEC. 8. IMPROVING CONSULTATION WITH INDIAN TRIBES.

       (a) Guidance Document.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission and the Secretary of the Interior shall prepare, 
     in consultation with interested Indian tribes, licensees 
     under part I of the Federal Power Act, and the public, a 
     guidance document that identifies best practices for the 
     Commission, Federal and State resource agencies, Indian 
     tribes, and applicants for licenses under part I of the 
     Federal Power Act for effective engagement of Indian tribes 
     in the consideration of applications for licenses under part 
     I of the Federal Power Act that may affect an Indian 
     reservation, a treaty, or other right of an Indian tribe.
       (2) Updates.--The Commission and Secretary shall update the 
     guidance document prepared under paragraph (1) every 10 
     years.
       (3) Public participation.--In preparing or updating the 
     guidance document, the Commission and the Secretary shall 
     convene public meetings at different locations in the United 
     States, and shall provide an opportunity for written public 
     comments.
       (b) Public Workshops.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after preparing or 
     updating the guidance

[[Page H8638]]

     document under subsection (a), the Commission shall convene 
     public workshops, held at different locations in the United 
     States, to inform and educate Commission staff, Federal and 
     State resource agencies, Indian tribes, applicants for 
     licenses under part I of the Federal Power Act, and 
     interested members of the public, on the best practices 
     identified in the guidance document.
       (2) Consultation.--In preparing the agenda for such 
     workshops, the Commission shall consult with the Secretary of 
     the Interior, interested Indian tribes, and licensees under 
     part I of the Federal Power Act.

     SEC. 9. TRIBAL MANDATORY CONDITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 4 of the Federal Power Act (16 
     U.S.C. 797) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), in the first proviso, by inserting 
     ``, or, in the case of tribal land, subject to subsection 
     (h), the Indian tribe having jurisdiction over the tribal 
     land,'' after ``under whose supervision such reservation 
     falls''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Tribal Mandatory Conditions.--
       ``(1) Criteria.--An Indian tribe may deem conditions 
     necessary under the first proviso of subsection (e) only if 
     the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this subsection 
     as the `Secretary') determines that the Indian tribe has--
       ``(A) confirmed the intent of the Indian tribe to deem 
     conditions necessary under the first proviso of subsection 
     (e) by resolution or other official action by the governing 
     body of the Indian tribe;
       ``(B) demonstrated financial stability and financial 
     management capability over the 3-fiscal-year period preceding 
     the date of the determination of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph; and
       ``(C) demonstrated the ability to plan, conduct, and 
     administer all services, functions, and activities that would 
     otherwise be administered by the Secretary with respect to 
     deeming conditions necessary on tribal land under the first 
     proviso of subsection (e).
       ``(2) Determination on request.--On request of an Indian 
     tribe, not later than 1 year after the date on which the 
     Secretary receives the request, the Secretary shall make the 
     determination under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Withdrawal of determination.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), if the 
     Secretary determines that an Indian tribe no longer meets the 
     criteria under paragraph (1), the Secretary may withdraw the 
     determination under paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Notice and opportunity to respond.--Before 
     withdrawing a determination under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall provide to the Indian tribe--
       ``(i) notice of the proposed withdrawal; and
       ``(ii) an opportunity to respond and, if necessary, redress 
     the deficiencies identified by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Alternative Conditions.--Section 33(a) of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. 823d(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or an Indian tribe'' 
     before ``deems a condition'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' 
     after ``the Secretary'' each place it appears;
       (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' 
     after ``the Secretary'' each place it appears;
       (4) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before ``concerned 
     shall submit'';
       (B) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before ``gave equal 
     consideration'';
       (C) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``may be 
     available to the Secretary'';
       (D) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before ``shall also 
     submit,''; and
       (E) by striking ``available to the Secretary and relevant 
     to the Secretary's decision'' and inserting ``available to 
     the Secretary or Indian tribe and relevant to the decision of 
     the Secretary or Indian tribe''; and
       (5) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by striking ``Secretary's final condition'' and 
     inserting ``final condition of the Secretary or Indian 
     tribe'';
       (B) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``consult with 
     the Secretary'';
       (C) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before ``may accept 
     the Dispute Resolution'';
       (D) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``advisory 
     unless the Secretary'';
       (E) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' before ``shall submit 
     the advisory and''; and
       (F) by striking ``Secretary's final written determination'' 
     and inserting ``final written determination of the Secretary 
     or Indian tribe''.

     SEC. 10. CONSIDERATION OF INVASIVE SPECIES.

       Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 811) is 
     amended by inserting after ``the Secretary of Commerce.'' the 
     following: ``In prescribing a fishway, the Secretary of 
     Commerce or the Secretary of the Interior, as appropriate, 
     shall consider the threat of invasive species.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 607, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rush) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of opposition 
to H.R. 3043.

                                    Kalispel Tribe of Indians,

                                        Usk, WA, November 8, 2017.
     Re Opposition to H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy 
         Modernization Acts.

     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Frank Pallone,
     Ranking Member, House Energy and Commerce Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone: On behalf 
     of the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, we write to once again 
     voice our opposition to H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy 
     Modernization Act. As stated by Kalispel Vice Chairman 
     Raymond Pierre during testimony before the House Natural 
     Resources Committee in April, H.R. 3043 goes much too far in 
     trying to address inefficiencies in the federal hydropower 
     licensing process and will create more problems than it 
     resolves. If enacted, H.R. 3043 will allow hydropower 
     operations to undermine the purposes of Indian reservations 
     and destroy with impunity tribal trust resources. We 
     respectfully call on you to oppose this legislation.
       The Kalispel Tribe resides on a 5,000-acre reservation on 
     the Pend Oreille River in northeast Washington. Our 
     reservation was created to provide our people with a 
     permanent home, including the ability to use our river and 
     its resources like we have since time immemorial. This 
     purpose has been undermined by the construction and operation 
     of the Albeni Falls, Box Canyon, and Boundary hydropower 
     projects on the Pend Oreille River. The Box Canyon Reservoir 
     flooded ten percent of our reservation. In addition, these 
     facilities have combined to transform our free-flowing river 
     into a fragmented system of reservoirs in which native fish 
     struggle to survive while invasive species thrive. Many 
     Kalispel no longer trust or use the river because of its 
     altered ecology.
       One of the Tribe's highest priorities is limiting any 
     additional loss of reservation lands and remedying the 
     cultural disconnection to the Pend Oreille River. The Federal 
     Power Act (``FPA'') offers the Tribe its most potent tool in 
     achieving these objectives. No other federal statute affords 
     the same degree of protection to the tribal nations whose 
     reservations are occupied by a Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission (``FERC'')-licensed hydroelectric project.
       Section 4 (e) of the FPA authorizes the Secretary of the 
     Interior to develop mandatory conditions for the approval of 
     FERC licenses that impact Indian reservations. In our case, 
     these conditions are the only way to mitigate longstanding 
     and otherwise unaddressed environmental and cultural impacts 
     caused by FERC-licensed projects. The Pend Oreille Basin will 
     be the recipient of significant conservation investments to 
     restore connectivity and other habitat characteristics that 
     make those projects consistent with the purposes of the 
     Kalispel Indian Reservation because of the 4(e) conditions 
     and Section 18 fishway prescriptions in the Box Canyon and 
     Boundary FERC licenses. This conditioning authority also 
     makes it much more difficult for hydroelectric projects to 
     further flood Indian lands, which is a recurring problem 
     across the United States.
       H.R. 3043 does not improve the federal hydropower licensing 
     process, but instead weakens its protections for impacted 
     tribal nations. H.R. 3043 detrimentally impacts the Section 
     4(e) conditioning regime and undermines its effectiveness in 
     protecting Indian Country. H.R. 3043 would overturn the D.C. 
     Circuit Court of Appeals decisions in Tacoma v. FERC, which 
     held that the Department of the Interior has mandatory 
     authority to develop appropriate conditions to protect Indian 
     reservations under the FPA and that FERC has no authority to 
     reject these conditions because Interior did not meet FERC's 
     truncated schedule. H.R. 3043 would force the Department of 
     the Interior to comply with FERC's schedule. This change will 
     impair the Department of the Interior's ability to fully 
     examine each project and if it misses a deadline, tribal 
     interests will not be considered until the next relicensing, 
     often fifty years later.
       H.R. 3043 would empower FERC to determine the scope of the 
     environmental review for 4(e) conditions. This change creates 
     a new burden for FERC in an area in which it lacks expertise. 
     It also would require the Department of the Interior to 
     consider the balance of energy production against its trust 
     responsibility to Indian lands. Interior's only interest in 
     the current process is the protection of Indian lands and 
     that should remain its focus--it is not an arm of FERC.
       Finally, H.R. 3043 would overturn the Supreme Court's 
     decision in Escondido v. FERC, 466 U.S. 765 (1984) by giving 
     FERC the authority to make a determination that a 4(e) 
     condition or fishway prescription is inconsistent with the 
     FPA. This fundamentally changes the FPA and undermines the 
     Department of the Interior's ability to protect Indian lands 
     and tribal resources.
       The Kalispel Tribe urges the House of Representatives to 
     reject H.R. 3043. The bill elevates hydropower interests at 
     the expense of tribal rights. If this bill is enacted the 
     Kalispel Tribe will suffer so that hydropower licensing may 
     proceed without protecting tribal lands and trust resources.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Glen Nenema,
                              Chairman, Kalispel Tribe of Indians.

[[Page H8639]]

     
                                  ____
                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                   Washington, DC, April 27, 2017.
     Hon. Greg Walden,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Walden and Chairman Upton: As Members of the 
     Subcommittee on Energy with strong interest in facilitating 
     improvements in hydropower operations, development, and 
     licensing, we write to urge you to schedule another hearing 
     on this critical topic. We believe a hearing with 
     representatives of states, resource agencies, and Native 
     American Tribes is vital to having a full understanding of 
     how the 2005 hydropower license process reforms are working 
     and what changes may be necessary to further improve the 
     licensing and relicensing process to reduce delays and costs 
     for all parties involved.
       Hydroelectric power provides substantial, virtually carbon-
     free, baseload energy at low cost to our manufacturing sector 
     and to residential and commercial consumers. It is an 
     important asset that we believe is essential to maintain.
       At the same time, however, it is clear that while 
     hydroelectric generation is essentially free of air emissions 
     relative to fossil generation, it is not impact-free. Absent 
     mitigation, hydropower has major negative impacts on fish and 
     wildlife populations, water quality and other important 
     physical and cultural resources, particularly if it is poorly 
     operated or sited. In addition, increased demands for water 
     creates significant challenges of water supply management in 
     some regions. All of these competing interests must be 
     balanced in issuing a license. The Federal Power Act (FPA) 
     respects states' authorities to manage water resources 
     according to state laws allocating water rights. And, the FPA 
     authorizes states and federal natural resource agencies to 
     place conditions on hydroelectric licenses to preserve water 
     quality, protect public lands and Native American 
     reservations, and ensure proper fish passage to preserve 
     healthy ecosystems and fisheries.
       We were very encouraged by the substance and tone of the 
     Subcommittee's March 15, 2017 hearing entitled ``Modernizing 
     Energy Infrastructure: Challenges and Opportunities to 
     Expanding Hydropower Generation.'' The comments and 
     contributions from witnesses and Members on both sides of the 
     aisle were constructive, measured, and thoughtful, leading us 
     to believe that great potential exists to develop legislation 
     to improve the process for licensing hydroelectric generation 
     and pumped storage in this country.
       However, the hearing provided an incomplete record with 
     regard to the process of hydroelectric licensing. In order to 
     move forward on considering any legislative changes to 
     current law in a knowledgeable manner, the Committee must 
     hear from those who propose the conditions included in 
     licenses: states, federal resource agencies, and Native 
     American Tribes. Each of these entities has a unique role in 
     the licensing process stemming from its equally unique 
     responsibility for overseeing water rights and managing the 
     many demands on a river and its use. Neither power 
     generation, nor any other single use of a river, should 
     dominate the decision making process.
       We look forward to working with you on this matter and 
     respectfully urge you to hold a second hearing with these 
     witnesses prior to consideration of any legislative proposal. 
     Thank you for your attention and consideration.
           Sincerely,
         Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee on Energy 
           and Commerce; Bobby L. Rush, Ranking Member, 
           Subcommittee on Energy; Jerry McNerney, Member of 
           Congress; Scott Peters, Member of Congress; Gene Green, 
           Member of Congress; Michael F. Doyle, Member of 
           Congress; Kathy Castor, Member of Congress; John P. 
           Sarbanes, Member of Congress; Peter Welch, Member of 
           Congress; Paul Tonko, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
           Environment; Dave Loebsack, Member of Congress; Joseph 
           P. Kennedy III, Member of Congress; G.K. Butterfield, 
           Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                                  October 5, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: We are 
     writing you on behalf of the members of The Association of 
     Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), Environmental Council of 
     States (ECOS), and The Association of State Wetland Managers 
     (ASWM) to express our concern with provisions of H.R. 3043--
     Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017. If enacted as 
     written, the draft bill would modify Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing requirements under the 
     Federal Power Act, and may conflict with the states' 
     authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act to protect 
     water quality and provide critical input on federal dredge 
     and fill permits to wetlands and other waters under Sec. 404.
       Under the CWA and a state's own laws and regulations, 
     states are responsible for advancing the attainment of clean 
     and healthy waters. Section 401 of the CWA requires states to 
     certify that projects impacting navigable waters will comply 
     with applicable water quality standards and other state 
     requirements. Additionally, 401 certification is required for 
     federal dredge and fill permits to wetlands and other waters 
     under Section 404. Under this framework, states and 
     permittees have efficiently been able to balance 
     certification of hydropower facilities while ensuring that 
     water quality standards are met initially or through remedial 
     actions. By weakening Sec. 401 authority, H.R. 3043 would 
     harm the ability of the governmental entity with primary 
     responsibility for water quality protection.
       Additionally, H.R. 3043 places FERC in control of 
     permitting timetables and limits time extensions. This could 
     restrict states' abilities to gather necessary data and 
     scientific studies for permitting, which are crucial to 
     reaching collaborative, science-based conclusions. Rushing 
     scientific studies and data gathering would result in federal 
     agencies making regulatory decisions without sufficient 
     technical information, and may lead to litigation and less 
     effective oversight of hydropower facilities.
       H.R. 3043 needlessly impairs state authority granted under 
     the CWA, and undermines ``cooperative federalism,'' a core 
     principle of the Act and the Administration's approach to 
     environmental law. The bill will not improve permitting 
     efficiency, and will likely result in water quality standards 
     being even harder to achieve. ACWA, ECOS and ASWM welcome the 
     opportunity to discuss revisions that would better preserve 
     states' rights under CWA Section 401 and ensure the 
     protection of state water resources. Should you have any 
     additional questions, do not hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
     Alexandra Dunn,
       Executive Director, ECOS.
     Julia Anastasio,
       Executive Director, ACWA.
     Jeanne Christie,
       Executive Director, ASWM.
                                  ____

                                            Maryland Department of


                                              the Environment,

                                   Baltimore, MD, August 14, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The State of 
     Maryland (``Maryland'') provides the following comments on 
     the House of Representatives Bill 3043 (H.R. 3043)--
     Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017. Although 
     Maryland generally welcomes reforms that streamline the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing 
     process, Maryland strenuously opposes any provisions in H.R. 
     3043 that would have the effect of curtailing State authority 
     under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act to establish license 
     conditions to protect water quality. Several provisions of 
     H.R. 3043 essentially serve to constrain state agencies use 
     of their independent authorities, making it more difficult to 
     protect water quality.
       States serve an essential role in the FERC hydropower 
     licensing process when they review applications under Section 
     401 of the Clean Water Act in order to determine whether the 
     construction and/or operation of the facility will meet state 
     water quality standards and requirements. These reviews often 
     result in applicants conducting additional scientific studies 
     and states putting in place requirements (conditions) to 
     ensure that State water quality standards and requirement are 
     met. These types of conditions are essential for ensuring 
     that existing and new hydropower projects are built and 
     operated in a manner that is consistent with state and 
     federal environmental laws and are protective of the 
     environment. These conditions then become conditions of the 
     FERC license.
       H.R. 3043 designates FERC as the lead agency over federal 
     authorizations related to an application for a license, 
     license amendment, or exemption for a hydropower project. 
     This bill requires states to meet deadlines established by 
     FERC in a schedule that FERC develops for the licensing 
     action. Further, this bill places limits on FERC's ability to 
     easily grant extensions to the deadlines. As the lead agency, 
     FERC would establish and control the timeline for the 
     hydropower licensing process and it appears that H.R. 3043 
     gives FERC the authority to create a schedule that would 
     reduce the amount of time a state would have to get necessary 
     scientific studies completed and to assess whether water 
     quality standards and requirements will be met as required 
     under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Further, not only 
     does this legislation likely place pressure on states to 
     complete their water quality reviews more quickly using 
     existing information, it also provides applicants with an 
     entitlement to a trial-type hearing before a FERC 
     Administrative Law Judge whenever there is a dispute of 
     material fact. Moreover, this legislation declares the 
     decision of the FERC Administrative Law Judge to be final and 
     not subject to further administrative review. This allowance 
     for a trial-like hearing

[[Page H8640]]

     combined with pressure to use existing science and meet 
     strict deadlines together makes it even more challenging for 
     states to protect water quality.
       Finally, applications for amendments to existing licenses 
     which qualify as a project ``upgrade'' (which is determined 
     by FERC as to whether a proposed amendment qualifies as an 
     upgrade) obtain even more expedited processing by FERC. In 
     these cases, it appears that FERC would be the decision 
     maker, not the state, with regard to whether the desired 
     amendment to project operations would affect water quality.
       Decades of federal court decisions interpreting Section 401 
     have established the states' authority to require conditions 
     in FERC licenses necessary to protect water quality. These 
     decisions recognize and affirm the basic principle of 
     federalism embodied in the Clean Water Act that states have 
     the primary role and responsibility to ensure state water 
     quality standards are met.
       Maryland's interest in protecting water quality is as 
     important and relevant today as ever, particularly now as 
     FERC considers the relicensing of the Conowingo hydroelectric 
     dam on the Susquehanna River in Maryland. The Susquehanna 
     River provides approximately 50 percent of the fresh water to 
     the Chesapeake Bay and is an important driver of the Bay's 
     water quality. A joint study funded by Maryland and the Army 
     Corps of Engineers concluded that the Dam's loss of capacity 
     to trap sediment and associated nitrogen and phosphorus 
     pollution (nutrients) adversely affects the health of the 
     Bay. The precise nature of the Dam's adverse impacts on the 
     health of the Bay and the circumstances under which they 
     occur are currently the subject of additional study. What is 
     clear, however, is that any new FERC license for the Dam will 
     have to contain appropriate conditions to address sediment 
     and associated nutrient transport and ensure that Maryland's 
     water quality standards are maintained. Without appropriate 
     conditions Maryland may not be able to meet its commitment to 
     achieve EPA's Total Maximum Daily Loads (``TMDL'') for the 
     Bay.
       In impairing the states' primary roles and responsibilities 
     under Section 401 to fashion conditions in FERC licenses, 
     H.R. 3043 relegates the states--the entities with the 
     greatest interest and expertise in protecting state water 
     quality--to bystander or second-class status. Maryland 
     strenuously objects to the provisions in H.R. 3043 that would 
     make it more difficult for Maryland to ensure water quality 
     through the Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality 
     certification process.
       Maryland's concerns with the legislation's impact on the 
     Conowingo hydroelectric dam relicensing process could be 
     addressed by making clear that nothing in the legislation 
     alters Section 401 of the Clean Water Act with regard to 
     State authority, role, responsibilities, process and 
     timeline. Further, the legislation should clearly indicate 
     that state actions associated with Section 401 requirements, 
     including the assessment of water quality standard 
     achievement and resulting conditions, are not eligible for a 
     trial type hearing by a FERC Administrative Law Judge for 
     purposes of resolving disputes of material fact. Maryland 
     urges that the provisions of H.R. 3043 that would have the 
     effect of curtailing State authority under Section 401 of the 
     Clean Water Act be stricken from the bill.
       We thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
           Respectfully,
     Ben Grumbles,
       Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment.
     Mark Belton,
       Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rush 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to support it as well.
  Mr. Chairman, hydropower is backed by Members on both sides of the 
aisle. We all support hydropower, but the process for how we license 
these projects is far too important for us to get it wrong.
  While many Members on the minority side have objections to the 
underlying bill, H.R. 3043, due to its negative impact on States' 
rights and States' prerogatives under the Clean Water Act, my 
substitute amendment addresses these issues in a more responsible way.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 will not modernize or improve the hydropower 
licensing process, but, rather, it simply places private profits for 
industry over the public interest.
  Mr. Chairman, we certainly need a more balanced approach, such as the 
one provided in my substitute amendment, which contains bipartisan 
provisions that were included in the hydropower package that both sides 
agreed to in a fit of bipartisanship last December in committee.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment contains several provisions to improve the 
licensing process while also offering incentives to the hydropower 
industry.
  This substitute contains a requirement to set up a new licensing 
process, but, unlike H.R. 3043, it protects the rights of Federal 
resource agencies, States, and Indian Tribes to impose conditions in 
accordance with modern environmental laws.
  My substitute also amends the definition of renewable energy to 
include all hydropower, just as H.R. 3043 does; however, it expands the 
goals for Federal purchasing of renewable power beyond the 15 percent 
included in H.R. 3043 as an objective, not a mandate.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment also contains a ``reward for early 
action'' provision that authorizes FERC to take into account a 
licensee's investments made over the course of their license in order 
to improve the efficiency or environmental performance of their 
hydropower facility when setting the term of their new license.
  Mr. Chairman, in testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
we heard, repeatedly, that a major cause for licensing delays was due 
to incomplete applications that do not include all the pertinent 
information necessary to issue a decision.
  While H.R. 3043 does nothing to address this issue, my substitute 
does so by directing FERC and other Federal resource agencies to 
convene a negotiating rulemaking with all the stakeholders to develop a 
process in which a completed license application will be evaluated and 
issued or denied within a period of not more than 3 years.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment preserves States' and Tribal authorities 
by directing FERC and the Secretary of the Interior to issue guidance 
on best practices for engagement with Indian Tribes in the hydropower 
licensing process.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow industry profits to supersede the 
interests of Native Tribes, States, and other important stakeholders.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do 
so with some hesitancy against my good friend, but I would say that 
this amendment would strike and replace the base tax with language that 
would add additional layers of red tape and bureaucracy already to the 
permitting process.
  The bill itself, H.R. 3043, contains essential permitting and 
licensing reforms to ensure that renewable hydropower remains an 
important part of our all-of-the-above approach to energy, something 
that many of us on both sides of the aisle support.
  We know that the permitting process has been broken. We have heard 
from FERC over the years and project developers who have been stuck for 
more than a decade because of bureaucratic delays.
  We also know that we need to improve coordination. There are lots of 
moving parts with multiple permits required and sometimes dozens of 
agencies that are involved, but this bill, H.R. 3043, brings 
transparency and predictability to the process by empowering the State 
and Federal agencies to actually sit at the table with FERC to identify 
issues of concern and resolve them before they result in unnecessary 
delay.
  The bill, H.R. 3043, as we have said a number of times over the last 
hour, ensures that States and Tribes are an integral part of that 
process. The word ``consult'' appears no less than a dozen times in the 
30 pages.
  Without these important changes to the law, States and Tribes may 
continue to be left out of the important decisions relating to 
hydropower licensing.
  Again, I remind my colleagues that this is a new provision that we 
added. This wasn't in the bill last year as we debated this title and 
approved it in committee and saw it move again on the Senate floor with 
a vote that, as I recall, was 92-8.
  The bill, H.R. 3043, strikes a careful balance, which is why it has 
broad support from the American Council on Renewable Energy, the 
American Public Power Association, the Business Council for Sustainable 
Energy, Edison Electric Institute, International Brotherhood of 
Boilermakers, International

[[Page H8641]]

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Federation of 
Professional and Technical Engineers, Large Public Power Council, 
Laborers' International Union of North America, National Electrical 
Contractors Association, the National Hydropower Association, the 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the North American 
Building Trades Council, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and 
Joiners of America.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, we view over here on this side as a 
poison pill. It would kill jobs and discourage the development of 
clean, affordable, and reliable hydropower.
  Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment and vote ``yes'' on the bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
DeSantis) having assumed the chair, Mr. Estes of Kansas, Acting Chair 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3043) to modernize hydropower policy, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________