To provide for operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System pursuant to a certain operation plan for a specified period of time, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.

Mr. Chairman, while Members on both sides of the aisle support hydropower, unfortunately, the bill before us today is deeply flawed and will not modernize or improve the hydropower licensing process. Instead, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 would place private profits above the public interest by giving priority of our public waterways to industry in order to generate power and profits over and above the rights and the interests of Native Tribes or farmers or fishermen, boaters, and other stakeholders who also rely on these public rivers and streams.

Mr. Chairman, it is very important for us to remember that hydroelectric licenses can span between 30 and 50 years, and, under existing law, a license holder can be granted automatic yearly extensions in perpetuity without even having to reapply.

Mr. Chairman, this issue is far too important for us not to get it right this time. And what does H.R. 3043 actually do?

This bill will make the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, the lead agency over the licensing process and will require Native Tribes, the States, and other Federal resource agencies to pay deference to the Commission, even in areas where FERC has absolutely no expertise or statutory authority, including on issues regarding agricultural water use, drinking water protection, fisheries management, and recreational river use. How absurd, Mr. Chairman.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 would expand and alter the trial-type hearing provisions on the Federal Power Act, essentially rigging the process in favor of industry by providing multiple new entry points to challenge conditions designed by Federal resource agencies.

Mr. Chairman, the threat of these timely and costly hearings may be used to coerce agencies to propose weaker conditions, and, at the same time, this bill also shifts the venue for these hearings to FERC, which is another very obvious handout and handover to industry.

Mr. Chairman, in testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard, repeatedly, that a major

cause for licensing delays was due to incomplete applications that do not include all the pertinent information that is necessary to issue a decision.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address this very, very serious issue. In fact, this bill will implement strict timelines on Federal resource agencies, States, and Tribes, but does not require applicants to submit all of their information to these agencies before the clock actually starts ticking.

Mr. Chairman, FERC, itself, the very agency that will be charged with implementing this grossly bad bill, FERC, itself, disputed claims that this bill would streamline the licensing process, noting that the legislation ``could increase the complexity and the length of the licensing process.'' These are FERC's words, FERC's words before the committee.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow hydropower facilities to claim a monopoly over our public waterways without mitigating the negative impacts of these facilities on others who rely on these resources and without, at the same time, without complying with modern environmental laws.

H.R. 3043, Mr. Chairman, is opposed by States, opposed by the Native Tribes, opposed by the outdoor recreation industry and by more than 150 national and local environmental organizations.

Mr. Chairman, it is for all of these reasons that I, too, stand in concert and side by side with Native Tribes, the outdoor recreation industry, and the other 150 national and local environmental organizations. It is for these reasons that I, too, must oppose this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), from the State that made such a significant and giant step last night to making our Nation a better nation, the ranking member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a very important member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Snoqualmie Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, and a copy of the resolution passed in October 2017 by The National Congress of American Indians opposing the proposed amendments to the Federal Power Act.

Confederated Tribes and

Bands of the Yakama Nation,

Toppenish, WA, November 7, 2017.

Re Hydro legislation still bad for Indian Tribes, States and

Users of Public Waterways.

Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker,

Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader,

Honorable Members of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi and Honorable

Members of Congress: Yesterday, when the Rules Committee

discussed HR 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of

2017, a number of members of the committee including Chairman

Sessions, Congressman Cole, Congressman Newhouse, Congressman

McGovern, Congresswoman Cheney as well as the Chairman Walden

and Ranking Subcommittee Member Rush (who were testifying),

all stressed the importance of ensuring that Indian tribes

have their treaty rights and natural resources protected by

any actions of the Congress relative to hydropower reform. We

greatly appreciate the concerns of these members and the

amount of time they spent discussing tribes and dam

relicensing. I think many of them were aware of the degree to

which the placement of dams has negatively affected a number

of reservations, flooding some and damaging salmon runs at

others. While there was universal agreement that the rights

of tribes and states must be protected, there was not

agreement on whether HR 3043 accomplishes that laudable

intent. I must tell you that the bill does not do so.

First understand what the Federal Power Act (FPA) now says.

Under provisions that have been in effect for decades,

state governments, pursuant to the Clean Water Act, are able

to set water quality standards at hydro dams. Such conditions

are mandatory. Allowing states to establish water quality

standards, a key aspect of Federalism that many in Congress

have always fought for, was a lynchpin of the grand bargain

reached when the Clean Water Act became law. While Federalism

has not really benefitted Indian tribes, we are surprised

that the Congress would weaken the ability of states to

protect the public in this fashion. We hope you will read

what many states have said in letters to the Committee, i.e.,

HR 3043 weakens their ability to ensure their standards are

met during the licensing process. Letters of this nature have

come from entities as varied as the Western Governors

Association and the Southern States Energy Board.

Also under the longstanding language of Section 4(e) of the

FPA, Cabinet Secretaries with authority over ``federal

reservations'' are directed to ensure that a proposed hydro

project doesn't negatively affect a reservation or interfere

with its congressionally designated use. These include all

lands and marine reserves in the Federal estate from Indian

reservations, to National Forests to Wildlife Refuges.

Section 18 of the FPA deals with the establishment or

modification of fishways to ensure fish can pass over these

dams. The Secretaries of Commerce (for NMFS) and Interior

(for USFWS) deal with fish passage and the Secretaries of

Interior (for BIA, BLM, USFWS and NPS) and Agriculture (for

USFS) deal with protecting federal reservations. They have

the authority to propose mandatory conditions on hydro dams

to ensure their operation protects these federal resources

that belong to all Americans.

The legislation weakens the conditioning authority for

protecting state water quality, for fishways and for federal

reservations by transferring significant decision-making

authority to FERC. Under the bill, FERC and the license

applicant can challenge the necessity of a condition and have

that challenge heard via a trial-type hearing only at FERC

before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at that agency.

Under present law, decisions such as these are heard by ALJs

in the agency making the recommendation, where the expertise

resides. This provision in the bill is legislating forum

shopping and directing that the decision be made before an

entity whose expertise is in areas such as energy markets and

safety at power plants. FERC and its ALJs have no expertise

relative to Indian treaty rights or the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act among many bedrock laws and FERC testified

before the Committee that they do not want to be given this

newfound authority. While having trial-type hearings at FERC

and authorizing FERC to set all manner of schedules in the

permitting process will certainly create countless billable

hours for attorneys representing license applicants, it will

do nothing to protect the interest of Indian tribes or the

public at large, and as stated above, is directly contrary to

state authority under the Clean Water Act and Secretarial

authority now found in the Federal Power Act.

Yesterday we heard that this process will expedite

licensing but if that is the goal then wouldn't it make sense

to determine when an application for a license is complete?

Tribes repeatedly asked the hydropower industry to clarify

that matter in the bill but they refused. Why? Existing

hydropower dam licenses were issued decades ago before any

environmental statutes were on the books and many of those

dams are fish killers. Under the present law, when a license

expires the operator can automatically get annual extensions

allowing it to operate under 30-50 year old standards. These

extensions can go on for year after year with the operator

not having to spend any money to mitigate the damage to fish

or other resources. This is more than ironic considering that

the hydropower industry is telling Congress that they need

the legislation to ensure certainty and time frames in the

relicensing process. Additionally, the bill is drafted in

such a fashion that FERC can set schedules that are so

abbreviated that Tribes, Cabinet Secretaries or States who

wish to comment and perhaps undertake a fishery study when

necessary may not have the time to properly prepare suggested

or mandatory operating conditions. It is noteworthy that FERC

told the Committee that they don't see the legislation

actually streamlining the application process. Also, we

checked today and could find no tribes in support of this

bill.

We believe the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

(AINS) incorporates much of what the majority proposed in HR

3043 while incorporating many changes that are reflective of

the input that the Committee received from states and tribes

who took the time to relay views and concerns to the

Committee. A key part is the requirement for a negotiated

rule-making to improve and expedite the hydro licensing

process by bringing in states, local governments,

stakeholders and tribes to FERC to develop a process that

will enable FERC to make decisions on license applications

within a maximum of three years. We urge you to vote for the

AINS. Without such changes it is highly unlikely that the

bill will make it through the Senate. Thank you for

considering our views.

Sincerely,

Jode L. Goudy,

Tribal Council Chairman.

Mr. Chair, the substitute amendment that we will consider shortly provides Indian Tribes with authority to speak for themselves with respect to the hydropower licensing process.

Currently, Mr. Chair, the agencies of the Departments of the Interior and Commerce proposed conditions to protect Tribal reservations. If the substitute is enacted, Tribes that have sufficient capacity can assume responsibility for protecting their own reservations.

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

Mr. Chair, hydropower projects, a number of which were designed and built over the objections of Tribes, resulted in devastating losses of Tribal lands and fisheries.

We can and must do better. Hydropower projects can be designed, upgraded, and operated in ways that lower the environmental costs and preserve other important uses of the river.

Current law and current regulations already provide for consultation with Tribes. In fact, under the integrated license process, applicants are required to consult with Tribes 5 years before the current license expires if they plan to seek a renewed license.

The integrated license process was designed specifically for the more complex, controversial hydropower projects, either new projects or relicensing of existing projects.

Mr. Chair, many applicants, however, request and are allowed to pursue their license under the traditional license process that includes less opportunity for consultation. FERC should be denying some of these requests, but each and every one of them are granted by FERC.

When this happens, controversial projects run into predictable problems that bog down the license process. This is an administrative change that FERC could make that would require no new legislation and would improve the license process.

Mr. Chair, this bill does nothing--absolutely nothing--to speed up this problem or fix the process that we have been discussing.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters from: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, California State Water Resources Control Board, Western Governors' Association, State of Washington Department of Ecology, Environmental Council of the States, and Association of State Wetland Managers.

State of Vermont,

Agency of Natural Resources,

Montpelier, VT, September 12, 2017.

Re Comments in Opposition to Hydropower Policy Modernization

Act of 2017, H.R. 3043.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The Vermont

Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR) would like to express

strong concerns over the proposed Hydropower Policy

Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 3043. While VTANR supports

efforts to improve and streamline current hydroelectric

licensing processes, the Agency strongly opposes legislative

efforts to diminish States' ability to protect water quality.

Several provisions of H.R. 3043 would essential curtail the

State authority under Section 401 of the

federal Clean Water Act, effectively constraining State

agencies' ability to use their independent authority to set

license conditions, making it more difficult to protect

natural resources.

VTANR strenuously opposes provisions of H.R. 3043 that

eliminate or reduce States' delegated authority under Section

401 of the federal Clean Water Act to develop mandatory

licensing conditions protective of natural resources. State

agencies serve an essential role in the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process for

hydroelectric facilities. H.R. 3043 would designate FERC as

the lead agency over federal authorizations related to

applications of hydroelectric projects for a license, license

amendment, or exemptions. As the lead agency, FERC would

establish and control the timeline for licensing review and

process for hydroelectric projects. H.R. 3043 appears to give

FERC the authority to create a schedule reducing the time a

State would have to get necessary scientific studies

completed and reviewed to determine specific conditions

needed to protect water quality, as required under Section

401 of the federal Clean Water Act. This would effectively

permit FERC to license a facility before a thorough review of

the environmental impacts could be completed. Vermont uses

its Section 401 authority to issue water quality

certifications with conditions to ensure projects are built

and operated in a manner consistent with State environmental

laws and protective of the environment and public health.

In addition, a provision of H.R. 3043 provides applicants

with an opportunity to a trial-type hearing before a FERC

Administrative Law Judge whenever there is a dispute of

material fact. Under the provisions of H.R. 3043, the

decision of the FERC Administrative Law Judge would be final

and not subject to further administrative review. Currently,

conditions included in a Section 401 water quality

certification become mandatory license conditions and cannot

be altered or modified by FERC. Further matters of material

facts related to Section 401 water quality certifications for

hydroelectric facilities are heard at the State level by

courts or boards that are familiar with a State's water

quality standards and other environmental laws. The allowance

for the trial-type hearing before FERC could undermine the

States' authority granted under Section 401, making it more

challenging to protect water quality and natural resources.

Through decades of decisions, federal courts have affirmed

the authority of States to impose conditions in federal

licenses issued to hydroelectric projects under Section 401

of the Clean Water Act. These decisions recognize that States

have the primary responsibility to ensure State water quality

standards and other environmental laws are met. H.R. 3043

would undermine this authority by including a provision that

would allow FERC to seek resolution between it and States at

the federal level, elevating the dispute to the secretary

overseeing the federal statute. In the case of the federal

Clean Water Act, H.R. 3043 appears to allow FERC to negotiate

with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

or Secretary of Army, who are responsible for Clean Water Act

on the federal level, to settle a dispute with between it and

a state, effectively cutting States out of the process.

Vermont's interest in protecting natural resources is as

important and relevant today as ever, particularly because a

large number of hydroelectric facilities in Vermont are

slated to begin the federal relicensing process over the next

five years. FERC issues licenses to hydroelectric projects

for a term of 30 to 50 years. As such, many of the projects

scheduled for relicensing will likely need significant

changes in operations to meet modern water quality standards

and to restore State water resources from impacts of project

operations. As drafted, H.R. 3043 would reduce VTANR

delegated authority under Section 401 of the federal Clean

Water Act, creating ways for project operators to circumvent

state regulations during the licensing process to allow them

to operate in a manner that would continue to degrade the

environment and resources of the State.

VTANR recognizes the importance of hydroelectric generation

in meeting renewable energy goals. We urge you to consider

how the federal process can be improved without undermining

the very checks and balances that have helped hydroelectric

generation be viewed as a sustainable and renewable energy

source.

We appreciate your consideration of these comments on H.R.

3043 and look forward to solutions that improve our energy

security and infrastructure while protecting the environment.

Sincerely,

Julia S. Moore, P.E.,

Secretary.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in opposition to H.R. 3043 from environmental, recreation, fisheries, and conservation groups from across the country along with the list of groups that have signed these letters.

Environmental, Fisheries, Recreation, and Conservation Organizations in

Opposition to H.R. 3043

Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alaska Survival; All Outdoors;

Alliance for the Great Lakes; Alpine Lakes Protection

Society; Altamaha Riverkeeper; American Packrafting

Association; American Rivers; American Whitewater; Anacostia

Watershed Society; Anglers of the Au Sable; Animal Welfare

Institute; Apalachicola Riverkeeper; Appalachian Mountain

Club; Association of Northwest Steelheaders; Atlantic Salmon

Federation; Black Warrior Riverkeeper; California Hydropower

Reform Coalition; California Outdoors; California River

Watch; California Sportfishing Protection Alliance;

California Trout; Cascadia Wildlands; Catawba Riverkeeper;

Center for Biological Diversity.

Center for Environmental Law and Policy; Central Sierra

Environmental Resource Center; Clean Water Action; Coastal

Conservation League; Colorado River Water keeper Network;

Columbiana; Congaree Riverkeeper; Connecticut River

Conservancy; Conservation Law Foundation; Conservation

Northwest; Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship; Coosa

Riverkeeper; Crab Apple Whitewater Defenders of Wildlife;

Deschutes River Alliance; Downeast Salmon Federation;

Earth Design; Earthjustice; Earthworks; Endangered

Habitats League; Endangered Species Coalition;

Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC);

Foothill Conservancy; Foothills Paddling Club; Foothills

Water Network; Friends of Butte Creek.

Friends of Cooper Landing; Friends of Grays Harbor; Friends

of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge; Friends of the Kinni;

Friends of Merrymeeting Bay; Friends of the Crooked River;

Friends of the Eel River; Friends of the River; Friends of

the White Salmon River; Golden West Women Flyfishers; Grand

Canyon Trust; Grand Riverkeeper Labrador; Great Lakes Council

Fly Fishers; Green Latinos; Hells Canyon Preservation

Council; High Country Conservation Advocates; Holy Spirit

Missionary Sisters; Huron River Watershed Council; Hydropower

Reform Coalition; Idaho Rivers United; Illinois Council of

Trout Unlimited; Institute for Fisheries Resources; James

River Association; Kalmiopsis Audubon Society; Kenai River

Watershed Foundation.

Klamath Forest Alliance; Klamath Riverkeeper; Klamath-

Siskiyou Wildlands Center; Kootenai Environmental Alliance;

League of Conservation Voters; Lower Columbia Canoe Club;

Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association; Maine Rivers;

Michigan Environmental Council; Michigan Hydro Relicensing

Coalition; Middle Susquehanna Riverkeeper; Milwaukee

Riverkeeper; Mono Lake Committee; Mousam and Kennebunk Rivers

Alliance; National Heritage Institute; National Park

Conservation Association; National Wildlife Federation;

Native Fish Society; Natural Heritage Institute; Natural

Resources Defense Council; Natural Resources Council of

Maine; Naturaland Trust; Nature Abounds; Naugatuck River

Revivial Group.

New England FLOW; New Hampshire Rivers Council; North

Cascades Conservation Council; Northwest Environmental

Advocates; Northwest Guides and Anglers Association;

Northwest Resources Information Center; Olympic Forest

Coalition; Oregon Kayak and Canoe Club; Outdoor Alliance;

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations; Pacific

Rivers; Penobscot Paddle and Chowder Society; Planning and

Conservation League; Potomac Riverkeeper; Prairie Rivers

Network; Prince William Soundkeeper; Quartz Creek Homeowners'

Association; Religious Coalition for the Great Lakes; River

Alliance of Wisconsin; River Guardian Foundation; River

Network; Riverkeeper Network.

Rogue Riverkeeper; San Juan Citizens Alliance; Save Our

Saluda; Save Our Wild Salmon; Save the Colorado; Selkirk

Conservation Alliance; Smith River Alliance; Snake River

Waterkeeper; South Carolina Native Plant Society; Southern

Environmental Law Center; South Yuba River Citizens League;

Spartanburg Area Conservancy; Spearfish Canyon Society;

Spokane Riverkeeper; St. Mary's River Watershed Association;

Tennessee Clean Water Network; The Lands Council; The

Mountaineers.

The Roanoke River Basin Association; The Sierra Club;

Tributary Whitewater Tours, LLC; Trout Unlimited; Tuolumne

River Trust; Upstate Forever; Washington Environmental Law

Center (see Western Environmental Law Center); Washington

Wild; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake;

WaterWatch of Oregon; WESPAC Foundation; West Michigan

Hacklers; Western Environmental Law Center; Wild Earth

Guardians; Wild Washington Rivers; Yadkin Riverkeeper; Zoar

Valley Paddling Club.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, the minority side is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the minority is prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the minority is prepared to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters of opposition to H.R. 3043.

Kalispel Tribe of Indians,

Usk, WA, November 8, 2017.

Re Opposition to H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy

Modernization Acts.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rush amendment in the nature of a substitute, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Chairman, hydropower is backed by Members on both sides of the aisle. We all support hydropower, but the process for how we license these projects is far too important for us to get it wrong.

While many Members on the minority side have objections to the underlying bill, H.R. 3043, due to its negative impact on States' rights and States' prerogatives under the Clean Water Act, my substitute amendment addresses these issues in a more responsible way.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3043 will not modernize or improve the hydropower licensing process, but, rather, it simply places private profits for industry over the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, we certainly need a more balanced approach, such as the one provided in my substitute amendment, which contains bipartisan provisions that were included in the hydropower package that both sides agreed to in a fit of bipartisanship last December in committee.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment contains several provisions to improve the licensing process while also offering incentives to the hydropower industry.

This substitute contains a requirement to set up a new licensing process, but, unlike H.R. 3043, it protects the rights of Federal resource agencies, States, and Indian Tribes to impose conditions in accordance with modern environmental laws.

My substitute also amends the definition of renewable energy to include all hydropower, just as H.R. 3043 does; however, it expands the goals for Federal purchasing of renewable power beyond the 15 percent included in H.R. 3043 as an objective, not a mandate.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment also contains a ``reward for early action'' provision that authorizes FERC to take into account a licensee's investments made over the course of their license in order to improve the efficiency or environmental performance of their hydropower facility when setting the term of their new license.

Mr. Chairman, in testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard, repeatedly, that a major cause for licensing delays was due to incomplete applications that do not include all the pertinent information necessary to issue a decision.

While H.R. 3043 does nothing to address this issue, my substitute does so by directing FERC and other Federal resource agencies to convene a negotiating rulemaking with all the stakeholders to develop a process in which a completed license application will be evaluated and issued or denied within a period of not more than 3 years.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment preserves States' and Tribal authorities by directing FERC and the Secretary of the Interior to issue guidance on best practices for engagement with Indian Tribes in the hydropower licensing process.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow industry profits to supersede the interests of Native Tribes, States, and other important stakeholders.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include in the Record extraneous material on H.R. 3043.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower

Policy Modernization Act of 2017. This legislation, introduced by my friend and colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, is an important step toward modernizing our energy infrastructure, creating jobs, and, yes, strengthening our economy. I want to thank her for her commitment to this issue.

The committee went through regular order with the bill. We held two hearings on background issues, one legislative hearing, and both subcommittee and full committee markups, where the bill was agreed to by a voice vote. Following the markups, bipartisan committee staff held more meetings to hear from over a dozen Tribal governments to gather additional views.

I think that the resulting bill strikes a careful balance. Changes were made to increase State and Tribal consultation requirements, and a very strong savings clause was added to protect States' authorities under the Clean Water Act.

Hydropower is an essential component of an all-of-the-above energy strategy for this country. Hydropower is clean; it is renewable and affordable base load power. It is good for consumers' electricity bills, and it is also good for jobs, which is why labor is strongly supportive of this legislation.

There is a tremendous opportunity to expand hydropower production on existing nonpowered dams. Less than 3 percent of the dams in the U.S., approximately 2,200 dams, produce electricity. There are also opportunities to improve the process for the projects that are due for relicensing. By 2030, over 400 existing projects, with almost 19,000 megawatts of capacity, will begin the relicensing process, and these projects, in fact, may be at risk.

Fixing the licensing process would also improve safety. Upgrading the performance of existing dams and utilizing existing nonpowered dams, canals, and conduits would enable investments, which would address aging dams and, yes, improve overall safety.

The duration, complexity, and uncertainty of the hydropower licensing process creates significant challenges that prevent investments that would create jobs and benefit consumers. The licensing process for a new hydropower development project can last over a decade and costs tens of millions of dollars--significantly longer than the time that it takes to construct a natural gas-fired power plant of the same size.

This legislation, H.R. 3043, would level the playing field by modernizing the permitting process without compromising environmental protections. The bill improves administrative efficiency, accountability, and transparency. It requires balanced, timely decisionmaking and reduces duplicative oversight from the multiple Federal agencies that review hydropower applications.

This bill brings certainty and timeliness to the licensing process by enhancing consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian Tribes, and it requires FERC to establish a process for setting the schedule for review. H.R. 3043 streamlines and improves procedures to identify scheduling issues, propose licensing conditions, and resolve disputes.

This bill also contains provisions to expedite the approval process for an amendment to a license for a qualifying hydro project upgrade. Without the hydropower licensing improvements in this bill--without them--we risk losing investment opportunities in new hydropower infrastructure which would benefit consumers with affordable electricity and expand the use of clean, renewable energy.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their work, and the great staff, on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, October 31, 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy & Commerce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning H.R. 3043, the

``Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.'' This bill

contains provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Oversight and Government Reform. As a result of your

having consulted with me concerning the provisions of the

bill that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction, I agree to

forgo consideration of the bill so the bill may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor.

The Committee takes this action with our mutual

understanding that by foregoing consideration of H.R. 3043 at

this time we do not waive any jurisdiction over the subject

matter contained in this or similar legislation, and we will

be appropriately consulted and involved as the bill or

similar legislation moves forward so that we may address any

remaining issues that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of

conferees from the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform during any House-Senate conference convened on this or

related legislation.

Finally, I would appreciate your response to this letter

confirming this understanding and ask that a copy of our

exchange of letters on this matter be included in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration thereof.

Sincerely,

Trey Gowdy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, can I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), who is a member of the Natural Resources and Armed Services Committees, to speak in support of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I don't intend to use all the time that is remaining. I just want to make a couple of points to my colleagues as we close debate on the general debate on this bill.

This isn't a new bill. A lot of us in this body on both sides support an all-of-the-above strategy. It includes safe nuclear. It includes clean coal. It supports energy efficiencies, renewables, wind, solar, and hydro.

This bill, H.R. 3043, is not a new bill. In fact, the provisions, almost to a tee, in both the House and the Senate version last year in a bill that ultimately didn't get conferenced to President Obama, we didn't really have any disagreements on the hydro section. We came to an agreement and the House passed the bill as it relates to the hydro bill. And the Senate bill passed, as I recall it, 92-8, pretty overwhelming, pretty bipartisan. In essence, the same provisions that we have here.

I got to say that, throughout the process, we listened to the concern raised by some of the stakeholders, including States and Tribes. We made a number of significant changes to the version of the bill as compared to the version again last year that added more strength, more hurdles to go through.

The biggest change, frankly, that we made was taking the hammer away from FERC to compel agencies to stick to a deadline. Consequently, no permits are going to be granted by default because of a missed deadline. But we also inserted new State and Tribal consultation requirements with a very strong savings clause that clarifies that nothing shall affect the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws. That wasn't in the bill last year. That is new this year.

So I think that we have accommodated the concerns, particularly when many of the Members that are here in this Congress that were there last Congress actually voted for the provisions we had, certainly in committee as well as on the Senate floor.

Again, I just want to read into the Record page 17, line 23: ``No Effect on Other Laws. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899), and those provisions of subtitle III of title 54, United States Code, commonly known as the National Historic Preservation Act, with respect to an application for a license under this part.''

This bill is stronger than the one that most of us supported last year, particularly as it pertains to hydroelectric licensing by FERC.

So I commend the action of Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, who, again, carried the water on this in this Congress. I would like to think that we will have a positive vote with Republicans and Democrats supporting the bill. We are prepared to now discuss and debate the amendments.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chair, I just want to say that this is a very good amendment. It is bipartisan. It is critical that--I know our Great Lakes Caucus, on a bipartisan basis, in both bodies, the House and Senate, have taken strong actions against the Asian carp.

This is a good amendment. We are certainly prepared to accept it, and I commend you for taking the time on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, yes, I do have, now, extended family in Texas.

Mr. Chairman, this is another tool in the toolbox for FERC. We want to make sure that areas are protected that have survived, somehow, these terrible hurricanes.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support this good amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that allows for a study of the potential to expand non-Federal hydropower projects in Federal dams. It is a good amendment. I support it, and I urge my colleagues to support it on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so with some hesitancy against my good friend, but I would say that this amendment would strike and replace the base tax with language that would add additional layers of red tape and bureaucracy already to the permitting process.

The bill itself, H.R. 3043, contains essential permitting and licensing reforms to ensure that renewable hydropower remains an important part of our all-of-the-above approach to energy, something that many of us on both sides of the aisle support.

We know that the permitting process has been broken. We have heard from FERC over the years and project developers who have been stuck for more than a decade because of bureaucratic delays.

We also know that we need to improve coordination. There are lots of moving parts with multiple permits required and sometimes dozens of agencies that are involved, but this bill, H.R. 3043, brings transparency and predictability to the process by empowering the State and Federal agencies to actually sit at the table with FERC to identify issues of concern and resolve them before they result in unnecessary delay.

The bill, H.R. 3043, as we have said a number of times over the last hour, ensures that States and Tribes are an integral part of that process. The word ``consult'' appears no less than a dozen times in the 30 pages.

Without these important changes to the law, States and Tribes may continue to be left out of the important decisions relating to hydropower licensing.

Again, I remind my colleagues that this is a new provision that we added. This wasn't in the bill last year as we debated this title and approved it in committee and saw it move again on the Senate floor with a vote that, as I recall, was 92-8.

The bill, H.R. 3043, strikes a careful balance, which is why it has broad support from the American Council on Renewable Energy, the American Public Power Association, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Edison Electric Institute, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Large Public Power Council, Laborers' International Union of North America, National Electrical Contractors Association, the National Hydropower Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the North American Building Trades Council, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, we view over here on this side as a poison pill. It would kill jobs and discourage the development of clean, affordable, and reliable hydropower.

Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 839 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), the newest member of the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two bills: H.R. 4, which is the FAA Reauthorization Act, and a closed rule for H.R. 3144, which would adjust operations at the Federal Columbia River Power System.

We are lucky today, Mr. Speaker, in that we will have Mr. Newhouse, who is an expert from Washington State on H.R. 3144, come down to the floor and talk extensively about that measure and why it is important for Washington State. But before we talk about Washington State, I want to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill as well.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, it is not every rule in every case we are able to make every Rules Committee member's amendment in order, but we are fortunate today that, during Mrs. Torres' very first rule on the House floor, we are making her amendment in order, which, again, Mr. Speaker, is one of those prerogatives of Rules Committee members.

I know that in the first few moments of the FAA bill, Mr. Speaker, we are going to want to talk about the good work that went on in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It has really been my pleasure as not just a Rules Committee member, but as a Transportation and Infrastructure Committee member to be able to work on this bill now in two committees.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that we went not only through our initial hearings in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; we went through a summer markup last year. We have gone through five short-term extensions on FAA, and we are now here prepared to consider a full 5-year reauthorization on the floor.

It has not been the easiest process. There have been a lot of folks who haven't gotten everything they have wanted in this process, but it has been a collaborative process, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad that we have it here today.

I would be remiss if I didn't thank our committee chairman on the authorizing committee, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Shuster, for all the work that he has done. As you know, he has been a long champion of reforming the FAA, believing that we could get even more value for the American taxpayer dollars out of the FAA. While he did not achieve everything that he wanted to achieve in this bill either, Mr. Speaker, we have a dramatic step forward in H.R. 4 today.

These things never happen by accident, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, and I want to thank all the folks who have been toiling behind the scenes in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee day in and day out. I am thinking of folks, Mr. Speaker, like Chris Vieson. I am thinking about folks like Naveen Rao. I am thinking about Hunter Presti and Brittany Smith.

Mr. Speaker, even though he has left us to go, now, serve in the article II Federal Railroad Administration, I want to thank Matt Sturges, who was the former staff director there at the committee, for all he has done over 2 years to get us to this place.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, getting this work done requires a collaborative working relationship, Members and staff across the aisle, from committee office staff to personal office staff, and it has really been a rewarding process. I am very proud of the product that we have on the floor today, but it wouldn't have been possible without all of the staff working and the collaboration that went on. I am grateful to folks for that. That is the authorizing committee side, Mr. Speaker.

On the Rules Committee side, we had an equal amount of work going on. These past few days, moving this bill through the Rules Committee, the staff has had to work tirelessly, in large part, because of all the amendments that were offered to the bill. We now, in this rule, today, Mr. Speaker, made in order 116 different revisions to this bill.

Let me say that again. We went through a complete, full, and open markup in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as you know, Mr. Speaker; but then, in the Rules Committee, we made in order an additional 116 amendments through this rule today: 56 of those are amendments sponsored by my Democratic colleagues; 36 of those are amendments sponsored by my Republican colleagues; and 24 of those are amendments that have bipartisan support here in this Chamber. That is just over 50 percent of all the ideas that were brought to the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker.

I hope that my colleagues are as proud of that as I am. It reflects the commitment that Speaker Ryan made to having a more open and transparent process. Here, again: 56 Democratic amendments, 36 Republican amendments, and 24 bipartisan amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this FAA bill is a good step towards bringing more value to the American taxpayer from the FAA, and this rule is a good step to making

that possible. With the passage of this rule today, we will be able to move directly to that debate.

Mr. Speaker, don't believe the headlines that say Congress has packed up its bags and gone home. I hear that day in and day out that folks think this 2018 is not going to be a particularly productive legislative session. I reject that. I reject that with no reservations whatsoever.

I see the passion my friends on the Democratic side have for continuing to make improvements for the American people. I see that same passion on our side. Now, I am not saying we are not going to have some challenges keeping people focused on the process at hand, but this FAA bill is a good example of the fact that we are still hard at work, and there is still much work that we can do together.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, finally delivers on the regulatory reform to the FAA certification process.

Now, if you have any companies in your district that are involved in FAA regulations in any way, shape, or form, you know exactly what I am talking about. This certification process is going to allow companies all over the country, including many in my district, Mr. Speaker, like Meggitt in Suwanee, like Universal Avionics in Duluth, like Siemens in Cumming, Gulfstream in Savannah, and many others, to get safer, more innovative aviation products to market faster.

Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker: safer products, more innovative products, more value to the American taxpayer to market faster.

This bill also provides a pathway to regulatory certainty for unmanned aircraft systems. That allows companies like L3 Technologies and Colonial Pipeline in Alpharetta, like UPS in Sandy Springs, like our electric utilities in Gwinnett and Forsyth Counties, Mr. Speaker, and many other companies in my home State of Georgia to get their technologies out faster, to make environments safer for their employees and for my constituents.

We all know that the transformative power of unmanned aviation is upon us. We have got to regulate that in a safe and responsible way to make sure that the rules are in place for certainty, for safety, and for opportunity for innovation. I believe we have that in this bill.

We have a choice, Mr. Speaker. We are either going to lead the world in unmanned aviation or we are going to cede leadership to countries like China. I say we seize leadership, and we are seizing it here in this bill.

The bill also commits that our airports--from the busiest airport in the world, Mr. Speaker, my hometown airport of Hartsfield-Jackson, the fourth busiest airport in the State; and also in my district, Mr. Speaker, is Briscoe Field in Lawrenceville--that these airports have access to long-term funding sustainability. We all know that yanking the pendulum back and forth on Federal funding does not serve any of our constituents' cause. Funding stability--knowing that they can count on the Federal Government to be their partner in providing innovation and improving the overall experience of those men and women who travel through these airports--is of vital importance.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill ensures that our American airlines--like my hometown airline of Delta--can compete and win against anyone on the planet in terms of the service, reliability, safety, and customer service that we have come to expect. Again, aviation is a partnership in this country, Mr. Speaker, between private sector actors and public actors. We need to do all that we can, from our end of Pennsylvania Avenue, to be the very best partners that we can.

Of course, we can always do more, and I hope that we will continue to do more. I am expecting a very robust Transportation Committee cycle here over the next 9 months. But this bill today is a significant downpayment on our commitment to the American people to make our aviation infrastructure continue to be the very finest on the planet.

Mr. Speaker, this rule that, again, will govern debate of both H.R. 4 and H.R. 3144 is a fair rule. These are both commonsense measures that will benefit the American people. I hope my colleagues will see that, I hope my colleagues will come to the floor and support this rule, and I hope my colleagues will also support the two underlying measures.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I say with no levity that we are absolutely thrilled to have Mrs. Torres on the Rules Committee, as she has already made a contribution. She is going to continue to make a wonderful contribution.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from California, that sometimes setting expectations is the right way to find success in the things that we pursue in our lives.

This FAA bill, I recognize her concerns that not every amendment was made in order. She is absolutely right. However, this bill did go through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where all of our transportation subject matter experts are supposed to be, and absolutely every amendment was considered in that transportation committee.

Now it leaves the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where the subject matter experts are, and we have now made in order over 100 additional amendments brought from all across this House, more Democratic amendments made in order than Republican amendments made in order, but over 100 additional amendments made in order to try to perfect this bill.

It may not be everything that folks would like to see, but I would share with the gentlewoman, Mr. Speaker, that from my brief Rules Committee experience, we are getting close to a high-water mark here, and I am going to try to take credit and share enthusiasm when we have an opportunity to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte), for his insights on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee and a subject matter expert on the Columbia River bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, with great optimism that we will return to the bill at hand, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from California I do not have any speakers remaining, and so I am prepared to close when she is. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I had a wonderful closing statement but, against that backdrop of collegiality, I will say only this. I did mention earlier that subject matter experts were assigned to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. My friend, Ms. Titus, is on that committee; I am on that committee.

As a subject matter expert, my mom and dad come to me regularly to help them with their airline reservations, Delta Airlines, of course, being an Atlantan. But just recently, they were heading out to California; demanded that I make those reservations going into Ontario instead of LAX because, why in the world would anyone want to

battle LAX when they could be in the Torres district there in Ontario?

They were treated wonderfully and had a wonderful visit, so I recognize the gentlewoman's passion for her airport.

Mr. Speaker, if you have an airport in your district, if you have aviation travelers in your district, you want the FAA to be reauthorized. This bill, this rule makes that possible. This bill gets that job done in an open, collaborative, and bipartisan way. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, support the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to Kurt Schrader, who has been a partner with me on this legislation for a while--actually, since before I was here, he has been working on this bill--and today is a good day.

``I would like to think that there might still be salmon and steelhead to fish for when my great-grandkids try fishing.'' That is from Bob, who lives in Brush Prairie in my district. I have heard Bob's sentiments echoed literally from thousands of folks across southwest Washington.

Unfortunately, our salmon runs are now fighting for survival. It is practically a miracle when a fish can make it upstream without getting caught between a sea lion's teeth. They certainly don't get caught unscathed.

Mr. Chairman, what we currently have on the Columbia River is an ecosystem seriously out of balance. I recently met with local fishing guides who, with despair in their voices, told me between 70 and 100 percent of the fish they land show visible signs of a struggle with a sea lion, barely escaping becoming a meal for the already engorged sea lions. We are seeing fewer and fewer salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon make it past this gauntlet of sea lions as the fish make their way upstream.

Donald from Vancouver told me the other day he reeled in a salmon-- half of a salmon. A sea lion was fighting him for the other half.

Look, we are not anti-sea lion. Oh, my goodness, no. We are just for protecting our native fish, a Pacific Northwest icon, and in order to do that, we have got to make it easier to remove some of the most egregious offenders, problematic pinnipeds.

Sea lions aren't endangered anymore. In fact, they are doing really, really well. They weigh a ton. Literally, a Steller sea lion can weigh up to 1 ton. Between the California and the Steller sea lions, their populations have increased by hundreds of thousands, and now they are overindulging on an all-you-can-eat buffet of salmon at numbers that are totally unnatural on the Columbia River system. The sea lions are winning this battle.

Forty-five percent of spring Chinook adult salmon disappear between the mouth of the Columbia River and the Bonneville Dam. Oregon's fish and wildlife agency has concluded after much study that the Willamette River steelhead runs are facing a 90 percent chance of extinction due to predation.

That is why we are here today, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan effort to save our wild fish from being decimated by animals that have migrated out of their natural habitat and whose population is ever increasing.

My bill, the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act, provides Tribal and government resource managers with the means to rapidly respond and remove California and Steller sea lions from specific areas where they are posing the most harm to our salmon restoration efforts.

The Columbia River makes up the entire southern border of my district. The river is a lifeline for clean, affordable energy and brings economic benefit through both recreational and commercial fishing.

While the lethal take of sea lions is a last resort, it is necessary to protect the hundreds of millions of dollars in investments that the Northwest residents have made to protect and enhance salmon and other ESA-listed species on the Columbia River.

Nonlethal solutions like hazing and, literally, transporting sea lions hundreds of miles away and releasing them have not worked. The sea lions come right back.

In Washington State, we are forced to live with a cautionary tale of failing to take strong action. In the 1980s and 1990s, Federal officials failed to grant the same authority that we are asking for today to halt the salmon slaughter in Seattle at the Ballard Locks. By the time Congress acted, a whole run of steelhead was decimated.

Let's not allow history to repeat itself. H.R. 2083 is a much-needed solution. The bill would amend section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide States and local Tribes with the tools necessary to humanely manage sea lions on the waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries as long as the sea lions are not part of an ESA-listed species. This is common sense, Mr. Chairman.

Additionally, this legislation allows not only the Northwest State wildlife agencies, but also qualified Tribes to obtain permits to help protect the recovery of ESA-listed salmon, authority not granted currently under the law.

Simply put, my bill cuts through the bureaucratic red tape, streamlines the permitting process, and allows States and Tribes to rapidly respond to remove sea lions from areas they pose the most threat to salmon recovery. Mr. Chairman, this is the last line of defense against fish runs bordering on extinction.

This bill enjoys bipartisan support both here in Congress and at home. As I mentioned, my friend and neighbor to the south, Kurt Schrader, has been an invaluable partner in getting this bill to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is supported by the Governors of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission; the Washington, Idaho, and Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife; the Ilwaco Charter Association; the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries; and the Coastal Conservation Association of Oregon and Washington. Public utilities are among the bill's supporters.

I am also pleased a companion bill is moving through the Senate now, with bipartisan support, underscoring the urgency of this issue.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting H.R. 2083. Let's make sure our kids and our grandkids and great-grandkids can experience the thrill of reeling in their first salmon on the Columbia River.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter of support from the Public Power Council and a letter of support from the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho Departments of Fish and Wildlife and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.

June 22, 2018.

To: Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, and Northwest

Congressional Delegation.

Re Support for H.R. 2083 and S. 1702--To reduce marine mammal

predation on endangered Columbia River salmon.

We come together today to lend our strong and joint support

for H.R. 2083 and S. 1702, bills that would reduce predation

of endangered adult salmon and steelhead. The Public Power

Council (PPC) is a not for profit association that represents

about 100 consumer-owned electric utilities in the Pacific

Northwest on issues regarding the Federal Columbia River

Power System. The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

(CRITFC) provides coordination and technical assistance to

the tribes in regional, national, and international efforts

to ensure

that treaty fishing rights issues are protected in a way that

guarantees the continuation and restoration of tribal

fisheries into perpetuity.

In the last few decades, west coast sea lion populations

have increased ten-fold. This growing population has expanded

its search for food and found it in the Columbia and

Willamette Rivers, river systems they had never before

accessed. A recent NOAA Fisheries study estimates that

pinnipeds consumed between 10-45 percent of some stocks of

returning adult salmon in 2017. It is difficult to envision a

successful recovery plan for fish listed under the Endangered

Species Act without addressing this aggressive predation on

the very adult fish that have benefitted from current efforts

only to fall short in surviving a return to their spawning

grounds.

H.R. 2083 and S. 1702, introduced in the first session of

the 115th Congress, address this concern by building on

existing authorities that allow some lethal take of sea lions

near Bonneville Dam by appropriate tribal and state entities.

Fisheries biologists estimate predation would greatly

decrease by incorporating all management activity in the

areas of high predation between the mouth of the river up to

the dam.

These bills are widely supported in the Northwest. In

addition to this joint support from CRITFC and PPC, regional

governors from both parties, along with other industries who

rely on healthy salmon and steelhead runs, have come together

to back these bills. We are hopeful the proposals will

receive broad bipartisan support in the House of

Representatives and Senate.

This situation continues to expand supporters of this

legislation among diverse interests in the public, private

and nonprofit sectors. Our joint support represents that

healthy salmon and steelhead runs are critical to the future

of the Columbia River treaty tribes and utilities. This bill

would give fisheries managers greater tools to appropriately

reduce predation of these endangered fish. Again, we support

H.R. 2083 and S. 1702 and urge their expeditious passage

through Congress.

Sincerely,

Scott Corwin,

Executive Director, Public Power Council.

Jaime A. Pinkham,

Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to one piece. I keep hearing that this isn't a silver bullet. No one is claiming that this is a silver bullet. This is a step in the right direction to protect endangered salmon runs that are critical for commercial, recreational, and Tribal resource use. This is really iconic to the Pacific Northwest, and it is part of our heritage. It is something that we would like to pass on to our kids and our grandkids. Passing this bill today allows us to do that.

Ratepayers are so committed to this. In the States of Washington and Oregon, ratepayers who fund the Bonneville Power Administration and the dam--the hydro system--spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year. If you get it all together, it almost cracks $1 billion annually that is spent in mitigation efforts to protect the species that are impacted.

As ratepayers, we spend a lot of money to protect and support these runs because it is so specific and unique to our way of life. This is a critical thing for us. It is one of those things where you literally can stand on the shore of the Columbia River and you can watch sea lions toss salmon, and you watch them play with salmon. You can come across carcasses of salmon on the river with a single bite mark taken out.

I walked across and found a sturgeon longer than my arm with a single bite mark taken out of her stomach. Basically they took the eggs--they took the caviar--and then let it go.

We look at that and we think we, as ratepayers, because we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to protect these runs and bring them back into fuller health, to watch these animals not even eat a full meal but just play with them, it makes you sick, Mr. Chairman.

So if you are someone who believes in protecting species and having a balanced ecosystem--this isn't about picking one species over the other. This is literally us trying to restore some balance here. It is one of those things where you would have to fight hard to find a reason not to support this.

When very liberal Governors and very conservative Republican Governors come in and ask us to pass this legislation, it should cause you to stop and pause. This is one of those things that this body should be about, and today is a good chance to take a step forward in protecting these wild runs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I am proud to be the newest member of the House Rules Committee. When I expressed my desire to join the committee to the minority leader, I shared my hope that I could do my part to ensure the committee would allow the House to work its will in an open way. Unfortunately, the rule that we are bringing to the floor does not meet that standard. For that reason, I rise in opposition.

The rule we consider this afternoon is a combined rule for H.R. 3144, legislation to delay and derail management practices at the Federal Columbia River Power System in the Pacific Northwest, and H.R. 4, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act. There is no reason for the House to take up these items in a combined rule. We have plenty of time to give each bill a full, robust debate, and plenty of time to allow the House an opportunity to vote on some of the 138 amendments filed to these bills that were not made in order under this rule.

Mr. Speaker, the House appears to be in a rush to leave here every single week. Last week, we only had three voting days, and with this combined rule, who knows how long we will be here this week. Perhaps we could use some of this extra time to take up a number of issues which Americans have been asking for.

Instead of making this yet another short week, how about we give Americans a vote on addressing gun violence by giving us a vote on background checks, bump stocks, assault weapons, gun trafficking reform; or ensuring that we don't find ourselves in a constitutional crisis by protecting the special counsel, and making sure that we address Russian interference in our elections; or allowing the House to actually take a vote on so many outstanding immigration issues by protecting DACA and TPS recipients?

There are 244 cosponsors of Representative Denham's ``Queen of the Hill'' resolution, including over 40 members of the majority party.

Nearly 8 months since President Trump terminated the DACA program, Congress has continually failed to protect the thousands of American Dreamers who lose their protections every single day. Dreamers are the educators, doctors, and small-business owners who make our communities better and help make our country stronger and safer.

There are very real consequences for the lack of a permanent solution to this crisis. The American people want us to act. We can respect their will by taking up the ``Queen of the Hill'' resolution on one of the many days where we find ourselves with nothing to do. We could work together to at least provide the House with a path forward where the best idea wins.

Mr. Speaker, instead of doing what we did last week by canceling voting days, let's take this time to act on behalf of our constituents. Why don't we put a stop to the administration's attack on the Affordable Care Act and work on bipartisan improvements to control the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and increase access to services?

Finally, why don't we take some time to do what I have been calling for since my first day in Congress and pass a large-scale infrastructure package? There are roads and bridges crumbling around our country, transit systems in need of significant repair, and a power grid waiting to enter the 21st century. We need robust investments in our transportation and energy infrastructure.

In its 2017 report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave us our infrastructure a nearl failing grade of a D-plus. But based on my experiences driving around my hometown, that might be a bit too generous.

These are all the things that have bipartisan agreement. It is up to us to address the real problems before us with leadership, security, and stability that the Nation demands.

That said, as I mentioned before, we have two bills included in this rule. The first is the FAA Authorization

Act, the first long-term FAA reauthorization since 2012. This legislation was developed over 3 years of bipartisan and stakeholder negotiations. It will provide long-term stability for our Nation's aviation community, continue investments in research and innovation, and make necessary reforms to improve American competitiveness and safety in aviation.

I appreciate Chairman Shuster working with Ranking Member DeFazio to ensure that this bill is as bipartisan as possible. I would have preferred that we did more to assist our Nation's airports, but this bill reflects the committee's will.

Airline safety is on all of our minds, especially after the tragedy of Southwest Flight 1380. Moving this bill forward, without the poison bill language we had seen in previous versions, will go a long way in improving passenger safety, passenger comfort, and the entire experience on our Nation's airlines.

Following my work to return the Ontario International Airport to local control, we have seen my hometown airport go through a renaissance with new flights being added constantly. It is my hope that this bill continues that growth and allows for more improvements at the airport.

While I am pleased this rule does make in order an amendment I offered to assist Ontario International Airport and airports like it, there are many amendments which were not made in order.

One such amendment I want to mention is Representative Cartwright's amendment No. 152 on single-pilot operations. I am extremely concerned with section 744 of the underlying legislation, which establishes an FAA research and development program in support of single-pilot all- cargo operations utilizing remote piloting or computer piloting technology.

Unfortunately, I believe moving in this direction--single-piloted aircraft--will result in excessive workload for pilots and safety risks for everyone.

I think it would have been fair for the House to give the Cartwright amendment a floor debate and a simple up-or-down vote.

In addition, I am disappointed that Representative Grace Meng's amendment No. 28 was not made in order. This amendment would have standardized the treatment of animals aboard airlines.

I know we were all horrified when we read the reports last month of a pet who died after being forced into a luggage compartment, or being flushed down a toilet, or being forced to leave the plane.

According to a U.S. Department of Transportation report issued in February, 24 animals died in the care of U.S. carriers last year. I don't think it is too much to ask for a vote on the House floor to establish standards for the safety of our constituents' pets.

In addition to the FAA authorization bill, this rule will also bring H.R. 3144 to the floor. This bill is intended to provide for operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System and delay multiple court decisions which are intended to protect the local environment.

This legislation would derail the ongoing comprehensive efforts to improve dam management practices on the Columbia River basin, creating problematic conservation and management policies. The impact on salmon and steelhead trout, in particular, would harm not just the environment, but also tribes and businesses of the Pacific Northwest.

I joined the Rules Committee from my previous role as ranking member on the Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee. I was proud of the work I did to protect Tribal communities, and while serving in that role, I opposed this legislation due to the negative impact on local tribes.

The 2014 operation plan, which this bill attempts to re-implement, was developed by the Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Services. That plan was found to violate the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, and failed to live up to the agreement we made with local tribes.

Native peoples of the Pacific Northwest ceded most of their ancestral homeland to the U.S. in exchange for the right to catch salmon and steelhead at their accustomed places. This tradition carries great cultural and religious significance, but the current operation plan would further harm Tribal fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying legislation because it fails to include the appropriate input from local tribes. I urge my colleagues to reconsider bringing this bill forward, and go back to the drawing board where an agreement can be reached that brings all affected parties on board.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule we have before us, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on the promise of draining the swamp, but has instead allowed corruption to run rampant in the executive office. Several Cabinet officials are being investigated for ethics violations and the misuse of Federal funds.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Carson spent over $31,000 on a new dining room set for his office. Interior Secretary Zinke spent $139,000 of taxpayer money to remodel three sets of office doors.

One of the most outrageous practices by President Trump's Cabinet is the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on luxury air travel. Just a couple of examples: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Pruitt spent over $14,000 on a private jet traveling just 300 miles within Oklahoma.

Interior Secretary Zinke cost the taxpayers $12,000 chartering a plane belonging to an oil and gas exploration firm.

President Trump recently said: ``Sometimes it may not look like it, but believe me, we are draining the swamp.''

Well, with a Cabinet like this, I have to agree with President Trump in part. It does not look like he is draining the swamp, but that is because he is not.

For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lieu's H.R. 3876, the SWAMP FLYERS Act. This legislation will ensure that senior political appointees are not using Federal funds for official travel on private aircraft.

Unlike the restrictive rules we are considering today, this bill would be brought to the floor under an open rule so that all Members have the opportunity to amend the bill on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu) to discuss this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.