[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19287-19300]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2015

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

                              {time}  1921


                     In the Committee of the Whole

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



                 Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Cramer

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

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                        TITLE __--OTHER MATTERS

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chair, this amendment simply authorizes the 
voluntary--and I stress voluntary--vegetation management within 150 
feet of the exterior boundary of the right-of-way near structures on 
U.S. Forest Service land.
  As a former energy regulator and a utility commissioner, I know there 
are many threats to power lines running across this country. Most of 
the time, this comes down to vegetation, as odd as it might seem, but 
especially in areas where there are a lot of trees and that are remote 
areas hard to get to.
  Off-right-of-way vegetation management on these lands are the 
responsibility of the United States Forest Service. But for any number 
of reasons, they aren't conducting this critical work to ensure the 
reliability of our electricity.
  Utility companies don't want to do the work off their right-of-way 
due to the lack of clarity in their legal liability or a strict 
liability standard. This amendment provides that legal certainty and 
holds utilities accountable for gross negligence or criminal 
misconduct.
  Lastly, Madam Chair, it is important to note that this amendment 
demonstrates that this is not--and I stress is not--a backdoor to 
logging and prevents the sale of the vegetation by the utility and 
clarifies it shall be the property of the United States.
  Madam Chair, I would also emphasize that the Edison Electric 
Institute and the American Public Power Association support this 
amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I want to stress that this authorizes 
voluntary vegetation management within 150 feet of the exterior 
boundary of the right-of-way, prevents the sale of vegetation, and 
limits legal liability. I think it is a good amendment.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, the manager's amendment to H.R. 8 already 
includes a provision which would hand over management of vast swaths of 
U.S. public lands to private corporations and other utility providers 
under the guise of preventing forest fires.
  This provision was inserted in the dead of night, and the full House 
won't get to vote on it. This is a terrible way to treat our public 
lands.
  As if this weren't enough, this amendment would go even further, 
allowing electric utilities to clear-cut a football field-length swath 
of national forest adjacent to transmission rights-of-way.
  It would also shift liability for fire damage caused by transmission 
infrastructure from the utilities to the American taxpayers, and that 
is just not right.
  The Forest Service and the BLM are already working with utilities to 
improve right-of-way maintenance, and both agencies testified before 
the Natural Resources Committee that prior agency approval is not 
necessary for emergency vegetation maintenance work.
  Mr. Huffman offered a commonsense amendment at markup which would 
have required proactive planning by utilities in coordination with land

[[Page 19288]]

managers to identify and address potential fire threats, but every 
Republican voted against it. Instead, they are supporting legislation 
which would lead to less responsible stewardship of the American 
people's forests.
  According to the National Interagency Fire Center, power lines were 
responsible for causing only 0.03 percent of forest fires in past 5 
years.
  Madam Chair, if Republicans were serious about preventing and 
fighting forest fires, they would work with us to adequately fund the 
Forest Service and fix the problem of fire borrowing, which last year 
burned up 52 percent of the agency's budget.
  But this isn't about solving a problem. This is about control. It is 
regrettable that House Republicans seek to give away the people's land 
to private interests. It is outrageous that this would happen.
  Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam Chair, I just want to correct a couple of the 
statements made sincerely by the opposition to this. I want to be clear 
that the cost of this is borne not by the taxpayers, but by the 
utilities themselves. The reason that they are not able to do it now, 
of course, is because of a lack of clarity and the liability. So this 
simply clears that part of it up.
  Again, I want to get back to I was a regulator for nearly 10 years. 
Some people may remember not so many years ago a major rolling brownout 
that led to blackouts in the northeastern part of this country.
  All of that was caused by trees growing into transmission lines. It 
has a cascading effect. And, yes, if it is a large forest, those trees 
growing into transmission lines can also create forest fires.
  This is a very basic approach. Most of the arguments that the 
gentleman raised are to the underlying bill, not to this amendment. 
This amendment is very straightforward.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Dakota 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Duffy

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

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

                        TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

     SEC. 7001. ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall ensure that the requirements 
     described in subsection (b) are satisfied.
       (b) Requirements.--The Administrator shall satisfy--
       (1) section 4 of Executive Order 12866 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) 
     (relating to regulatory planning and review) and Executive 
     Order 13563 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) (relating to improving 
     regulation and regulatory review) (or any successor Executive 
     order establishing requirements applicable to the uniform 
     reporting of regulatory and deregulatory agendas);
       (2) section 602 of title 5, United States Code;
       (3) section 8 of Executive Order 13132 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) 
     (relating to federalism); and
       (4) section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)).

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

                              {time}  1930

  The EPA has long been known to issue onerous and costly rules with 
little regard to the impact on American businesses and the families who 
run those businesses.
  According to some estimates, 17 of the EPA's major rules implemented 
between 2000 and 2013 have imposed an annual economic impact of $90 
billion--a $90 billion annual impact per year, which means real jobs 
and a real impact on our economy.
  Adding to the frustration, the EPA often ignores longstanding 
executive orders that require them to improve their own regulatory 
coordination planning and reviews. These executive orders were issued 
under the Clinton and Obama administrations, two administrations that 
have a very positive outlook towards the EPA. By no stretch of the 
imagination do we consider them conservatives.
  These orders require departments, but not independent regulatory 
agencies like the EPA, to follow certain guidelines when it comes to 
major rules that would have a dramatic impact on State, local, or 
tribal government, or private sector expenditures in the aggregate of 
more than $100 million a year. So those are big rules that have big 
impacts.
  The mercury rule put forward by the EPA is a prime example of that. 
It was going to cost $10 billion. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court 
struck down that rule because the EPA unreasonably failed to consider 
the cost. My amendment would require the EPA to actually follow 
existing requirements to improve regulatory planning, coordination, and 
reviews.
  American families and businesses can't afford the EPA to continue 
with duplicative and overreaching regulations. The EPA should have to 
follow the same rules that other departments in American government 
must follow.
  Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUFFY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. I just want to say to the Chair and colleagues, this 
amendment requires the EPA to satisfy regulatory planning review 
requirements established by both the Clinton and Obama administrations.
  I think the amendment is a good one, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
which would require EPA to satisfy within 30 days certain regulatory 
requirements included in three executive orders in two sections of the 
U.S. Code. This amendment is a solution in search of a problem.
  EPA, in carrying out its responsibilities to write regulations as 
required by various statutes--for example, the Clean Air Act and the 
Clean Water Act--already complies with the EPA's specific 
responsibilities included in the three executive orders and two 
sections cited in this amendment.
  I say ``EPA'' specifically because some of these laws and executive 
orders impose ongoing obligations on these agencies and place 
responsibility on parties other than the EPA--for example, the Vice 
President and the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget. In such 
cases, it will not be possible for EPA to ``ensure that the 
requirements of subsection (b) are satisfied,'' as the amendment 
requires.
  In addition, some matters, such as the publication of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Agenda in the Federal Register, as cited in section 602 of 
title 5 of the U.S. Code, are handled by the General Services 
Administration on behalf of other Federal agencies and are therefore 
similarly outside of the EPA's control.
  Moreover, Madam Chair, this amendment has the potential to lead to 
confusion in the future because it requires

[[Page 19289]]

the EPA also to satisfy requirements in any successor executive orders 
that may establish requirements applicable to the uniform reporting of 
regulatory and deregulatory agendas.
  What happens if these successor executive orders are not consistent 
with the current ones? Then we have a situation where EPA is forced to 
comply with competing executive orders, leading to unnecessary 
confusion.
  Let's avoid this possibility by defeating this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, some of my friends across the aisle's 
arguments are: Don't let the people know. Let's not be transparent. 
Let's have the EPA implement rules with no comment, no transparency, 
and no input from the American people.
  That is not what our Founders envisioned. They envisioned a form of 
government where it was transparent and we all had a say in the 
process. These aren't radical ideas. This is common sense.
  Listen, a quote: ``Regulations shall be adopted through a process 
that involves public participation.'' That wasn't from Ronald Reagan or 
George Bush. That was Barack Obama.
  ``Each agency, where feasible and appropriate, shall seek the views 
of those who are likely to be affected.'' Not Ronald Reagan, not George 
Bush, but Barack Obama.
  This stuff makes sense. Open the process up, let the American people 
see the impact and the rules that are being proposed, just like in 
every other government agency. The EPA shouldn't get special treatment.
  Transparency, good government, American involvement from the people 
in the process is what this amendment is about. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support good government and a great amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, let me just say that this process with the 
EPA is very transparent, they do consider costs, and I disagree with 
the gentleman.
  I urge opposition to this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

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

                        TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

     SEC. 7001. DEFINITIONS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 7003. TIMELY FILING.

       To ensure timely redress by the courts, a covered civil 
     action shall be filed not later than the end of the 90-day 
     period beginning on the date of the final Federal agency 
     action to which the covered civil action relates.

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

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

     SEC. 7005. LIMITATION ON INJUNCTION AND PROSPECTIVE RELIEF.

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

     SEC. 7006. LEGAL STANDING.

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment 
to H.R. 8. The Gosar-Bridenstine-Yoho amendment ensures timely review 
for legal challenges of energy projects and limits attorneys' fees for 
such challenges in order to discourage frivolous lawsuits and foster 
American energy production.
  This amendment will streamline the process and encourage production 
of natural gas, hydropower, clean coal, geothermal, solar, oil, 
biomass, and all other sources of energy that are produced on Federal 
lands.
  Specifically, this amendment requires that U.S. district courts hear 
and determine covered civil action challenges as expeditiously as 
practical and that all covered actions be filed within 90 days of the 
final Federal agency action.
  This amendment is a responsible, commonsense step that a government 
accountable to the people should take to show proper stewardship of the 
public's dollar, time, and resources. If you support transparency and 
cutting red tape that is holding up energy development, then you should 
support this amendment.
  Just this week, the House passed legislation unanimously in the form 
of H.R. 3279, the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act. This 
bipartisan bill tracks how much money is paid out under the Equal 
Access to Justice Act, EAJA, and from which agencies. This legislation 
was necessary because, while Congress used to track such information, 
these practices were stopped in 1995.
  The Gosar-Bridenstine-Yoho amendment improves on this excellent 
bipartisan work by limiting attorney fees and frivolous lawsuits 
against covered energy products, including renewables.
  While no one knows the exact cost of EAJA payouts, as they have 
occurred untracked and in the dark for 20 years, the Government 
Accountability Office last reported in 2009 that special interest 
Washington, D.C., lawyers were billing the Federal Government at 
exorbitant rates, as high as $750 an hour.
  It seems only appropriate that H.R. 3279 should be signed into law, 
those reporting requirements should kick in, and our amendment should 
be adopted before the Federal Government squanders more taxpayer money 
paying out D.C. trial attorneys who specialize in holding up American 
energy production.
  House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop supports our commonsense 
amendment.
  Our amendment is endorsed by the Americans for Limited Government;

[[Page 19290]]

the American Petroleum Institute; Anglers United, Inc.; Arizona 
Builders Alliance; the Arizona Farm Bureau; Arizona Liberty; Arizona 
Pork Council; AZ BASS Nation; the Bass Federation; Concerned Citizens 
for America; Gavel Resources; Grand Canyon State Electric Cooperative 
Association; the Rural Public Lands County Council; Shake, Rattle and 
Troll Radio; Sulfur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative; the Yuma 
County Chamber of Commerce; and countless citizens around the country 
who are tired of red tape and bureaucracy holding up American energy 
production.
  I thank the chair and ranking member for their tireless efforts on 
the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act, and I 
strongly support H.R. 8.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Gosar-Bridenstine-Yoho amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for the amendment.
  We have talked to the Natural Resources Committee staff. Obviously, 
that is something that Chairman Bishop supports.
  This amendment does ensure the timely review for legal challenges of 
energy projects. It is a worthy amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment to H.R. 8.
  This amendment is another example of pro-corporate, anti-
environmental legislation designed by large corporations to restrict 
access to the courts for the average citizen.
  The Gosar amendment ignores separation of powers by telling the 
Federal courts how to do their job, restricting the type of relief a 
court can grant, and penalizing successful challenges brought under the 
Equal Access to Justice Act. This, in turn, limits access to legal 
relief for those challenging government decisions.
  Let's say you are a farmer or a rancher or a landowner and you live 
adjacent to Federal land that is being leased out to an energy company 
for fracking and you are worried about what is going to happen to your 
drinking water, you are worried about the price of your house, and you 
are worried about the health of your children. Well, this amendment 
will greatly interfere with your ability to challenge the decision of 
the Federal agency granting the permit. It will tie the hands of the 
courts in terms of deciding the case in a fair and just way.
  For nearly 70 years, the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, has 
served as the foundation for administrative agency action and ensures 
that agency action taking place in the rulemaking process is fair, 
efficient, and flexible enough to accommodate the myriad of agency 
actions it governs along with the challenges of daily life.
  Judicial review of agency action is a hallmark of the APA, and it is 
critical to ensuring that government action does not harm or adversely 
affect the public. The Gosar amendment would discard decades of wisdom 
and jurisprudence preserving the right of judicial review.
  First, it would reduce the statute of limitations for judicial review 
of agency action under the APA to 90 days. This is down from 6 years 
for most claims brought against the United States in cases involving 
onshore and offshore energy leasing, development, and transmission on 
Federal lands.
  This razor-thin window for review would effectively immunize 
government action involving energy projects from public accountability, 
allowing those agencies to opt out of our civil justice system.
  Second, the amendment limits a judicial stay of final agency action 
by requiring courts to only consider whether relief would be the least 
intrusive or narrowly drawn relief possible to correct a violation.
  Courts, however, typically consider other things, such as where the 
public interest lies. This sweeping limitation would dramatically 
interfere with the courts' ability to provide relief, tilting the 
outcome against the public interest.
  Lastly, this amendment slams the door to the courthouse by 
prohibiting access to funds under the Equal Access to Justice Act. By 
enacting the Equal Access to Justice Act, Congress recognized that 
individuals and organizations should not be deterred from challenging 
unjustified governmental action simply because it costs too much.
  For three decades, veterans, seniors, persons with disabilities, 
small businesses, and nonprofit organizations from across the 
ideological spectrum have relied upon the Equal Access to Justice Act 
to challenge illegal government action. This amendment would cripple 
the rights of those concerned or opposed to an energy project by 
preventing those who cannot afford to litigate a case against a big 
corporation from recovering fees, expenses, and court costs when they 
win.
  It is time for this Congress to stand up for everyday Americans. I 
urge my colleagues to stand for the rights of the individual and local 
communities and oppose this misguided amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1945

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


                 Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Upton

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

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

                        TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

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

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of Energy

[[Page 19291]]

     and the Secretary of Commerce shall jointly transmit to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Natural 
     Resources of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, the results of a 
     study to--
       (1) identify legal and regulatory barriers that delay, 
     prohibit, or impede the export of natural energy resources, 
     including government and technical (physical or market) 
     barriers that hinder coal, natural gas, oil, and other energy 
     exports; and
       (2) estimate the economic impacts of such barriers.

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


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Rouzer

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

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                        TITLE __--OTHER MATTERS

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

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ROUZER. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act.
  In early March of this year, the EPA published a final rule 
establishing new regulations for wood heaters. Manufacturers and 
consumers across the country are concerned about the negative impact of 
these new regulations. In essence, these new requirements will increase 
the cost to the point that wood heaters may very well be priced out of 
the marketplace. The best case scenario is that consumers will be 
paying more. Now, Madam Chair, neither is a good outcome.
  According to reports, 10 percent of U.S. households still choose wood 
heaters to keep their energy costs as low as possible. The number of 
households that rely on wood as their primary heating source--get 
this--rose by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2012.
  It is important to note that several States have worked to protect 
their residents from the consequences of these new regulations. 
Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan, Virginia, and my home State of North 
Carolina have all introduced or have passed legislation that prohibits 
their respective environmental agencies from enforcing these 
burdensome, unnecessary regulations. The reason is that they know the 
costs of additional regulations are always passed down to the 
consumers.
  Simply put, the Federal Government has no business telling private 
citizens how they should heat their homes.
  Think about all of the folks in the Midwest and the Northeast who are 
going to need and want a wood heater. After all, this is America. If 
you want to have the opportunity to buy a wood heater, you ought to 
have that opportunity. It shouldn't be priced out of the market.
  Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Madam Chair, the EPA has decided that 12 million wood-burning stoves 
in 2.4 million households across America need to be regulated.
  Back in the Eighth District of Missouri, about 30,000 households use 
wood heat to warm their homes. Census data shows that households 
heating with wood grew 34 percent between 2000 and 2010 and that low- 
and middle-income households are much more likely to use wood as a 
primary heating fuel. A given home in my district is five times more 
likely to be heated with wood than is the national average.
  Constituents I talk with daily are sick of this administration's war 
on rural America. Rules like these disproportionately hurt rural areas, 
which use much more wood heat than do urban or suburban environments: 
57 percent of households that primarily use wood for heat are in rural 
areas; 40 percent are in the suburbs; and only 3 percent are in urban 
areas. Times are already tough enough back home. Folks should not be 
punished for their self-reliance and their forethought to take 
advantage of an abundant, eco-friendly fuel like wood.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in eliminating this rule and keeping 
affordable energy available to folks who need it the most.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chair, this amendment will delay the 
implementation of the EPA's important standards for residential wood 
heaters--finalized

[[Page 19292]]

in February 2015--that will help improve air quality, especially in 
communities where people burn wood for heat.
  The EPA updated these standards because the Clean Air Act requires 
the EPA to set new source performance standards for categories of 
stationary sources of pollution that cause or significantly contribute 
to air pollution that may endanger public health or welfare, and the 
law requires the EPA to review these standards every 8 years.
  The EPA issued the first NSPS for residential wood heaters in 1988. 
The Agency amended the standards once in 1998 to prohibit the sale of 
wood heaters to consumers if the manufacturer had used an invalid test 
to obtain EPA certification that the heater met NSPS requirements. The 
1998 amendments did not change the emission limits in the original 
rule. This means the standards for wood heaters have not been updated 
in nearly 30 years.
  The EPA's standards reflect significant outreach to the public and 
interested stakeholders, including consultation with State, local, and 
tribal governments and a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel.
  The new standards will provide tremendous health benefits by cutting 
harmful air pollution, including particle pollution, carbon monoxide, 
and air toxics. Particle pollution causes a range of adverse health 
effects, including asthma, heart attacks, and stroke.
  The EPA estimates that the benefits of these standards will be up to 
$7.6 billion annually. Put another way, for every dollar spent to 
manufacture cleaner wood heaters, we will see up to $165 in health 
benefits. So blocking this rule is fiscally irresponsible.
  Some may claim that this rule will require people who use wood 
heaters to replace the models they currently use, but this standard 
applies only to the new manufacturing of wood heaters. It does not 
require people to replace the heaters they have already purchased. Let 
me repeat that. The EPA is not going into anyone's home and forcing one 
to replace a heater one currently has. The final rule also has a 
gradual 5-year phase-in to allow manufacturers time to adapt.
  If this amendment were to become law and if the EPA is unable to 
implement these standards, manufacturers will be able to continue 
producing outdated wood heaters that pose risks to our air quality and 
to our health.
  The EPA's rule is a reasonable one that is long overdue. It has 
important benefits, and it should be allowed to be implemented; so I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment that has 
been put forward in order to address an onerous, unnecessary rule. My 
question is: What are we going to try to regulate next--fireplaces? It 
is next on the list, it seems to me.
  I ask for the support of this amendment, and I thank my colleague 
from Missouri for being here to offer his words of support for the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


           Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

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

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

                        TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

     SEC. 7001. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 19293]]

     utility has conducted a proceeding to consider implementation 
     of the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric 
     utility; or
       ``(3) the State legislature has voted on the implementation 
     of the standard (or a comparable standard) for the electric 
     utility.''.
       (B) Cross-reference.--Section 124 of the Public Utility 
     Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2634) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``In the case of the 
     standard established by paragraph (20) of section 111(d), the 
     reference contained in this subsection to the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the date of enactment of that paragraph (20).''.

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

                              {time}  2000

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


               Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

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

  

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

                        TITLE VII--OTHER MATTERS

     SEC. 7001. STUDY OF VOLATILITY OF CRUDE OIL.

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. DeSaulnier) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Department 
of Energy to study and report to Congress within 1 year the maximum 
level of volatility that is safe for transporting crude oil by rail.
  This commonsense improvement to the bill is a first step in 
addressing concerns of residents in districts like mine that, while it 
is heavily industrialized, is also urbanized. The area that I represent 
has five oil refineries and two destination facilities for oil by rail.
  In 2008, oil traffic had increased over 5,000 percent along rail 
routes leading from production zones in America to refineries and hubs 
along both coasts. As traffic increases, so does the risk of 
derailments to communities. Bakken crude oil is considered more 
volatile than other types of crude and has important safety 
implications for all of us.
  The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has issued 
safety alerts warning that crude oil being transported from this region 
may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil. In fact, heavy 
volatile crude oil from this region has been compared to jet fuel with 
flammable vapors that can ignite after a derailment.
  Several communities along rail lines have been forced to evacuate or 
sustain significant property and environmental damage after derailment. 
Unfortunately, there have been instances of severe injuries and some 
deaths resulting from these accidents.
  While the Obama administration has taken important steps to improve 
tank car standards, more must be done to ensure that Americans living 
near railways are safe. This amendment requires DOE to determine the 
acceptable volatility for the safe transportation of oil by rail.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I 
support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of 
Energy to study the maximum level of volatility that is consistent with 
the safest practical shipment of crude oil by rail. Every one of us 
here wants the

[[Page 19294]]

safe transportation of all of our natural resources. Rail transport is 
getting larger and larger. We need to make sure that it is safe.
  I think it is a worthy amendment. I would urge all my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeSaulnier-Lowey-
Garamendi amendment. At the outset, I want to thank my friend, the 
distinguished chairman, for your wisdom in supporting this very 
important amendment.
  This year derailments in North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West 
Virginia endangered lives, destroyed homes, and jeopardized waterways.
  We must protect those who live near America's extensive rails, 
including my constituents in Rockland County, New York, where every 
week as many as 30 trains carry highly volatile Bakken crude oil past 
homes, schools, and businesses.
  In 2013, a freight train pulling 99 oil tanker cars collided with a 
truck in West Nyack, averting disaster because the cars were empty. 
This was not an isolated incident. Vehicles are frequently struck on 
train tracks that carry crude oil. Just last month a freight train 
collided with a car in Congers. We cannot afford to risk a ``next 
time.''
  We need scientific information to determine what volatility levels of 
crude oil can be safely shipped, which would be provided if this 
amendment passed, to protect those living near railways from the 
dangers associated with a crude oil derailment.
  I urge support of this amendment. I thank my colleague, Mr. 
DeSaulnier, and our chair again. It looks like we are going to see some 
important action on this very critical issue.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman, the staff, and Mrs. 
Lowey.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Deutch

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

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

                     TITLE VII--MARINE HYDROKINETIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 7004. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Deutch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chair, H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security 
Infrastructure Act, was crafted to support the modernization of our 
Nation's energy infrastructure and the promotion of energy efficiency.
  The Deutch-Takai amendment builds on this legislation by supporting 
further development of one of our Nation's clean, renewable energy 
sources, marine and hydrokinetic energy.
  This amendment reauthorizes the Department of Energy's marine and 
hydrokinetic research, development, and demonstration programs. This 
amendment would support the innovative work done by institutions across 
the country, including Florida Atlantic University in my district. I am 
so proud that FAU has been a leader in hydrokinetic energy, harnessing 
the clean power of our oceans to bring America one step closer to 
energy independence.
  FAU's research being done along our pristine coasts in Broward County 
has already shown the tremendous potential of hydrokinetic energy to 
produce reliable energy without endangering our beaches or oceans.

[[Page 19295]]

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

                              {time}  2015

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


                Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                        TITLE __--OTHER MATTERS

     SEC. __. SMART METER PRIVACY RIGHTS.

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

[[Page 19296]]

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

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


              Amendment No. 35 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                          TITLE__OTHER MATTERS

     SEC. ____. YOUTH ENERGY ENTERPRISE COMPETITION.

       The Secretaries of Energy and Commerce shall jointly 
     establish an energy enterprise competition to encourage youth 
     to propose solutions to the energy challenges of the United 
     States and to promote youth interest in careers in science, 
     technology, engineering, and math, especially as those fields 
     relate to energy.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I just want to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, as we 
have been debating important energy issues on the floor of the House, 
to offer my deepest sympathy to the families who have lost loved ones 
in San Bernardino and hope that we will come together as a country and 
find solutions to this terrible tragedy.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce 
this amendment because it talks about the goodness of this Nation and 
the wonderment of our youth. My amendment particularly is called the 
Youth Energy Enterprise Competition. It asks the Secretaries of Energy 
and Commerce to jointly establish an energy enterprise competition to 
encourage youth to propose solutions to the energy challenges of the 
United States and to promote youth interests and careers in science, 
technology, engineering, and math, especially those fields that relate 
to energy.
  As a member of the United States Congress, I have had the privilege 
of being on the Congressional Award Board that provides medals to young 
people across the country for their public service, for their 
volunteerism. I can see when they come to Washington the excitement and 
the future of this Nation.
  I truly believe that the future of this Nation is in energy 
independence. Economic growth, national security, expanding 
opportunities, and diversifying the energy sector workforce are 
critical issues we must invest our time and talent in.
  Across America, colleges, community colleges, high schools, and 
middle schools are talking about science, technology, engineering, and 
math. We are trying to introduce our children to the wonders of 
science, technology, engineering, and math.
  I do it by introducing my young people to NASA, NASA Johnson, 
inviting them down to the space center and watching their eyes open in 
amazement, or my annual Toys for the Kids effort, a big Christmas 
party, and the most popular entity is the astronaut and the space 
exhibit. So I know it is in our children.
  My amendment is consistent with the administration's commitment to 
promoting our national economic and homeland security interests and 
empowering our youth. It asks the Secretaries of the Energy and 
Commerce Departments to develop a challenge so

[[Page 19297]]

that our young people can compete with their ideas about the energy 
challenges of America.
  It is a good approach to getting ideas to those of us who are 
policymakers or maybe even to the world of the energy industry, from 
those in Silicon Valley--and when I say that, dealing with high tech--
to the hard-nosed energy in our Midwest, and certainly down to Houston, 
Texas, where we are dealing with LNG, natural gas, and oil and looking 
for new ways to produce that product in a safe and environmentally 
secure way.
  I think this competition will bring forth new ideas, excited young 
people, maybe starting from elementary or middle school, certainly 
working with young people in high school and rewarding them for their 
talent.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a number of pictures from my district. One 
exhibits a community garden but really is teaching young people about 
soil and the idea of how you raise trees and dealing with the science 
of farming. Then you have them also dealing with a drone, knowing the 
technology of that and using it in a good way.
  I have faith in America's youth, and I believe that this amendment 
will help us bring to the forefront their talent and bright new ideas 
to make this Nation the kind of strong and powerful nation that we know 
it is but, more importantly, using the genius of our youth to face the 
21st century energy challenges.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  It is listed in the Committee Report as Jackson Lee #35.
  Let me express my appreciation to Chairman Upton and Ranking Member 
Pallone for their leadership and commitment to American energy 
infrastructure development, security, independence and economic growth.
  I also wish to thank Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Slaughter, and 
the members of the Rules Committee for making in order Jackson Lee 
Amendment #35.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, 
which provides:


                  YOUTH ENERGY ENTERPRISE COMPETITION

  The Secretaries of Energy and Commerce shall jointly establish an 
energy enterprise competition to encourage youth to propose solutions 
to the energy challenges of the United States and to promote youth 
interest in careers in science, technology, engineering, and math, 
especially, as those fields relate to energy.
  Mr. Chair, American energy independence, economic growth, national 
security, and expanding opportunities and diversifying the energy 
sector workforce are critical issues we must invest our time and talent 
in.
  But we can diversify the energy sector only if we encourage our youth 
to be interested in energy related fields, which will position our 
nation as the leader in the 21st century.
  H.R. 8 seeks to continue to modernize energy infrastructure, help our 
nation build a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster 
America's energy security and diplomacy, promote energy efficiency and 
government accountability.
  As the Member of Congress from Houston, the energy capital of the 
nation, I am always looking to support energy policies that not only 
make our nation more energy independent and create jobs but one that 
also invests in the future of America: our youth.
  According to the Department of Education, 16 percent of American high 
school seniors are proficient in math and interested in a STEM career.
  We need to improve on getting more youth interested in and excited 
about careers in STEM.
  My Amendment seeks to inspire youth and create opportunities for 
youth to become excited about careers in the energy industry and to 
pursue energy related educational degrees in the STEM industry.
  The Administration and our nation as a whole must remain committed to 
inspiring, educating and equipping the next generation of Googles, 
Amazons, Twitters and Facebooks of the energy sector.
  In today's world, one only need look at all the technology we need to 
get by in our day to day dealings to understand the impact of STEM on 
our lives.
  Toddlers now have hand-held tablets to watch their cartoons such as 
Pepper the Pig and Thomas the Train, owing to innovation in technology 
and exposure to technology.
  Similarly, in the science, technology, engineering and math fields as 
it relates to energy, young people can be the solution to some of the 
challenges faced by our nation, but only through preparedness.
  Indeed, educating our youth in Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
Mathematics (STEM) fields is central to U.S. economic competitiveness 
and growth.
  According to a PEW Research Report, countries like Hong Kong, 
Singapore and Taiwan are leading the way in the globe in educating and 
preparing their youth in STEM.
  My Amendment seeks to propel U.S. youth so that they surpass their 
peers in the global community.
  Specifically, this Amendment directs the Secretaries of Energy and 
Commerce to jointly establish an energy enterprise competition to 
encourage youth to propose solutions to the energy challenges of the 
United States and to promote youth interest in careers in science, 
technology, engineering, and math, especially as those fields relate to 
energy.
  We need to prepare tomorrow's leaders for the competitive world of 
energy independence, security and infrastructure building.
  Part of our long-term strategy ought to be to stimulate and promote 
innovation among young people to meet tomorrow's sure demand for 
adequate supply of a qualified workforce in the STEM fields, 
specifically as it relates to energy.
  Mr. Chair, my Amendment will create the space and nurture the 
platform to develop our young people's ability to think deeply about 
the energy challenges of our nation and the role they can play in 
coming up with solutions.
  A youth energy enterprise competition can be the breeding ground for 
future innovators, educators, researchers, and leaders in the energy 
sector who can solve the most pressing challenges facing our nation and 
our world, both today and tomorrow.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me and support 
Jackson Lee Amendment #35.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. UPTON. But there is no way I could oppose this amendment, let me 
just say from the beginning.
  This amendment directs the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce to 
jointly establish an energy enterprise competition to promote youth 
interest in careers in science, technology, engineering, and math, 
especially as those fields related to energy.
  I heard from one of my heroes today, Dean Kamen, probably the best 
inventor of our time. He has, on his own, started just a wonderful 
program employing hundreds of thousands of youth all around the 
country, all around the world, a competition called FIRST Robotics, to 
really get high school and middle school students invested in looking 
at the science of so many different things in competitions that I 
participated in.
  My Governor, Rick Snyder, who was in town tonight, was honored as I 
think the number one guy in the Nation earlier this year in Michigan. 
We are going to have the national competition in Detroit, I want to 
say, in 2 years. But I have been at the regional competition for this, 
and where kids and mentors and companies are invested, this is the 
future of science in so many different things.
  This is a great amendment. I would urge all my colleagues to vote for 
it. I know that, as I look at my friendship with Dean Kamen, he will 
probably never talk to me again if I oppose the amendment. It is a 
great amendment. It should have been done as part of our committee 
mark.
  I look forward to working with the Education committees and 
appropriators to make sure that it is funded. It is a good thing. I 
would urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. I 
yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank my colleague from 
Texas for coming up with such a great program for young people. 
Listening to her and her sense of optimism about the future, I think 
that is what we need to encourage with our young people. I was so 
pleased to see that the chairman of our committee also supports it.

[[Page 19298]]

  I would like to lend my support and urge the amendment's adoption.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Upton 
for his enthusiasm.
  Dean Kamen is a hero of all of us. As I said, the greatest joy that I 
have seen in my young people when I invite them out is going to NASA 
Johnson out in Houston and, as well, when I bring the astronauts either 
to their schools or, more importantly, when NASA goes out to the 
schools. But when I have this big Christmas party, Santa Claus comes, 
but I will tell you that the astronauts are enormously popular.
  I want to thank Mr. Pallone, as well, for being committed to the 
energy and the dreaming and the inspiration and talent of our young 
people. That is what this amendment is about. I hope we can work 
together to find the funding but, more importantly, to get our young 
people engaged. I think they will have a lot of answers.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 36 Offered by Ms. Meng

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

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                         TITLE__--OTHER MATTERS

     SEC. ____. MODERNIZATION OF TERMS RELATING TO MINORITIES.

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

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


                Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Pallone

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

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

                       TITLE VII--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 7001. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

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

                              {time}  2030

  In yesterday's debate on the CRAs, we heard time and again that 
climate change is not a priority for Republicans because they are more 
concerned with the economy and jobs.
  Unlike the rhetoric that they would have us believe, a good economy 
and sound environmental policies are not mutually exclusive. We have 
actually experienced a boost in the economy under the Clean Air Act.
  However, climate change is having a real effect on our communities, 
from more frequent extreme weather events, like Hurricane Sandy, to the 
extreme drought in California, to the floods experienced in Florida. 
The emotional and economic tolls of these events have been great and 
will continue to increase the longer this Congress ignores these 
pressing issues.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to ignore climate change and 
disseminate

[[Page 19299]]

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


                Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Norcross

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

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

     SEC. 3007. REPORT ON SMART METER SECURITY CONCERNS.

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 542, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First of all, I appreciate the chairman and ranking member bringing 
this bill to us.
  As we know and the title indicates, this is about energy security. 
Well, my amendment is very simple and direct. We are urging and 
specifically directing that the Secretary of Energy study the potential 
cybersecurity weakness in smart meters and to report back on this in 1 
year.
  So the first question is: What is a smart meter? For the consumer, it 
is that little box outside your air conditioner or by the panel. It 
provides savings to the consumer, and to the utility provider, it is 
about providing that secure, reliable electricity at a competitive 
price.
  But these meters were designed back before the world as we know it 
today. Now we have to think of things very differently and think of 
them before they happen.
  So what are the risks? A GAO official revealed the vulnerability in 
these smart meters. There are approximately 40 million to 50 million of 
these meters that are already installed in hospitals, churches, homes, 
and in industry that could potentially be a target for hackers. That is 
why we should be concerned.
  The CIA report spoke about that malicious activity against IT systems 
and power systems overseas. Our society has become so reliant on the 
very electricity that we are standing under today that those who would 
do damage to our country might have a vulnerability here. And we need 
to act before they do. This is why I bring this amendment forward.
  I started out as an electrician many years ago, so I understand the 
power side of it. I sit on the Emerging Threats Subcommittee. I hear 
those threats each and every day. We have to make sure that we keep our 
homes, our businesses, and, most importantly, our military safe.
  We are talking about damaged equipment and potentially massive 
blackouts, not just like the ones we had in New York almost a decade 
ago but potentially taking down our entire grid.
  Smart meters are now part of the fabric of what we do day in and day 
out. This amendment very carefully

[[Page 19300]]

identifies those vulnerabilities. I would urge members to support this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I support the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. UPTON. This is the second smart amendment that is part of this. 
Both are good. We adopted the Grayson amendment a little while ago. It 
was a good amendment.
  This amendment directs the Secretary of Energy to study weaknesses in 
the security architecture of certain smart meters currently available 
and promulgate regulations to mitigate those weaknesses.
  We want every home to be safe, absolutely. We need to take all those 
steps, whether it be people's individual billing, whatever it might be. 
It is a good amendment. As I told Mr. Grayson, it is brilliant, smart.
  I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NORCROSS. I certainly appreciate the support. This is just one of 
many items that we have to look forward to before those who want to do 
us harm. So I appreciate it, and I urge the passing of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Allen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8) to 
modernize energy infrastructure, build a 21st century energy and 
manufacturing workforce, bolster America's energy security and 
diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency and government accountability, 
and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________