Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bipartisan bill and in strong support of our continued efforts to combat this terrible opioid epidemic that has ravaged virtually every community across the country and so many families as well.

We all know someone who is impacted and affected by this epidemic, and certainly my corner of the State is no different than any other part of the country. We are struggling.

There have been real bipartisan efforts, wins, in recent years, to address the problem. CARA, as Chairman Walden said a little bit earlier, as part of 21st Century Cures, provided billions of dollars for communities across the country and is delivering real results to those who are suffering. Clearly, more work is demanded and remains.

This bill, the ACE Research Act, is part of that work. It is a bipartisan bill that I have had the pleasure to work on with my good colleague and friend from Michigan, Debbie Dingell. It is a balanced bill that better allows the National Institutes of Health to partner with innovative companies doing cutting-edge research to get nonaddictive pain medication to those in need. That is what this bill does. It is essential in combating the opioid epidemic.

During the hearings that we held in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, requested that the NIH be given more flexibility to pursue these new avenues. I know that my colleague Debbie Dingell and I both had dinner last week with Francis Collins, and he was very excited to hear that it was scheduled for the House floor today. We look forward to its passage.

The advances in innovation can offer real hope to those who are suffering. Folks in Michigan and across the country are counting on the power of innovation to help us solve the opioid crisis. Let's give them what they deserve and pass this legislation. I look forward to getting it to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time, and I will be short.

This bill is important. It is bipartisan, and it ensures that patients will have access to the full continuum of care.

It is important to make sure that Congress and CMS understand how those dollars for Medicaid are being used. Whether that is under a waiver, whether it is under managed care, under fee for service, the goal of this legislation is to identify those gaps in our knowledge and to leverage MACPAC's research capabilities to address those gaps for the betterment of patients not only in Michigan but, obviously, around the country.

So this simply requires that Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission submit to Congress a report on the information about services furnished to Medicaid enrollees who are patients in an institute of mental disease, IMD, including standards that they must follow, including quality standards and recommendations how they can include the data collection for IMDs. This is going to be better for everybody, which is one of the reasons why it should have no opposition.

I appreciate the leadership of Mike Burgess, the chair of the Health Subcommittee, and Chairman Walden, and our friends on the other side of the aisle who, again, worked with us to make sure that this could be a reality this afternoon.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I particularly commend John Shimkus, the chairman of the subcommittee, who helped shepherd this bill through; Chairman Walden; Ranking Member Pallone and others; Mr. Tonko. It is truly a bipartisan work of art; 49-4 is what this bill passed in our committee.

I can remember way back when when President Reagan was in office and signing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in the Rose Garden. He said: We are going to keep our promise. The Federal Government is going to take care of nuclear waste. That is going to happen.

Well, here we are now nearly 50 years later. I can remember the Upton-Towns bill back in the 1990s, a bill that did very much along the lines of what this bil does. We came within just a vote or two of having it overridden by the U.S. Senate, stopping it in its tracks. So, decades later, here we are again.

In my district, we have two nuclear plants. Both of them have run out of room in their storage, so they have dry casks that are literally a John Shimkus baseball throw away from Lake Michigan.

Every one of these 100-some sites across the country is in an environmentally sensitive area, and at some point they are going to run out of room. In Michigan, we have got two other sites that also have dry casks in addition to the two in my district.

So we spent nearly $40 billion. Enough time has gone by. We need to deal with this. And for those who are against this bill, your alternative is just keeping it there--just keeping it in California, just keeping it on that pristine river, just keep it on the Great Lakes for however long. That is not the answer. This bill is.

Because it is bipartisan, I am confident that not only will we have the votes to get this thing through today, but we are going to get it ultimately to the President.

So, again, I want to thank our leadership on both sides of the aisle for getting this thing done.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2030) to deem the compliance date for amended energy conservation standards for ceiling fan light kits to be January 21, 2020, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5

legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, energy efficiency can provide benefits for consumers, for job-creating businesses, for energy security, and for the environment, but we have got to make sure that it is done right; and that is why I support S. 2030, Ceiling Fan Energy Conservation Harmonization Act, which was sponsored by my good friend from North Carolina, Richard Hudson, and certainly has strong bipartisan cosponsorship, including Mr. Carter, Mr. Rush, Mr. Peters, and Mr. Butterfield.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

As most of you know, ceiling fans often come with lights attached, thus, they serve two purposes for consumers. The Department of Energy regulates the energy efficiency of both the ceiling fans and the ceiling fan lights, and stringent new standards are scheduled to take effect in the next 2 years; but for some reason, DOE set the deadline for the ceiling fan light kits in 2019, while the ceiling fan standard deadline is in 2020.

This bill, S. 2030, would take the logical step of aligning the compliance deadlines for ceiling fans and ceiling fan light kits so that they both occur in 2020. This should ease the compliance burden for some manufacturers, make things easier for retailers, and may help lower the costs, in fact, for all consumers.

Although ceiling fan regulations may not be a front-burner issue, we ought to make sure that we take every opportunity to streamline Federal regs and help keep compliance costs down. That is why I would urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this, what I would consider, noncontroversial bill.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. That is correct. That is the purpose.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. I would note that in the gentleman's earlier statement, he said: ``whose lamps use more than 180 watts of electricity,'' but, in fact, it is 190 watts or less, but the gentleman, again, is correct.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.

I, too, have heard from lighting manufacturers, and I sympathize with the concerns asserted by them regarding potential unintended consequences.

The intent of this bill, and, for that matter, my intent, is to keep the compliance deadline for changes to the 190-watt limiter requirement at January 7, 2019.

We now know that the limiter requirement adds to the cost to consumers, it can compromise ceiling fan reliability, and is no longer needed to meet efficiency standards. The final rule that included the ceiling fan light kit standards also provided that the 190-watt limiter requirement is deemed to be met by any product that complies with the new efficiency standards.

The bottom line is that the 190-watt limiter should no longer be required beginning on January 7, 2019. This bill, S. 2030, seeks to delay the ceiling fan light kit compliance deadline only, but not to delay the change to the 190-watt limiter requirement.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, I do share that view. This bill directs the Secretary of Energy to make technical and conforming changes to any implementing regulation so as to carry out the provisions in this bill.

In carrying out this requirement, DOE should make clear to the regulated community that the specific inclusion of a watt-limiting device is no longer needed for a kit to be deemed to meet the 190-watt- or-less consumption requirement.

I further want to associate myself with the gentleman's comments regarding enforcement. The Secretary should take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that no enforcement action is taken against any manufacturer solely because a kit fails to include the 190-watt limiting device.

To the extent he can, the Secretary should make clear in a public manner that DOE will not enforce against these manufacturers with regard to this particular matter so that no producer holds back their product for the market out of fear of violation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my good friend for yielding and for hosting this hour tonight. I look forward to the comments by all my colleagues from Michigan and Illinois.

Let me just start out by saying a couple of things. I had a great ninth grade teacher, Mr. Denekas. We learned about how the government worked. You pass a bill in the House and you pass a bill in the Senate. I learned later on that the House bill is always better than the Senate. But in this case, John Shimkus and I--and he is going to be a speaker from Illinois a little bit later on this evening--were two conferees on this bill.

I have got to say that, as we debated this bill, there were some elements that were not so good. But at the end of the day, as this bill meshed together, we took the best elements of both the House and the Senate bill and we got a bill that the President was able to sign.

I can remember being trashed left and right back in November and December about what this bill was going to do or not going to do: it wasn't going to provide real tax relief to the working class; companies weren't really going to give bonuses; this was all just going to be bogus arguments.

Now, at the end of the day, 2-plus months since the bill was signed and became enacted, my constituents are finding out good things about the bill. Yes, they are getting real take-home pay increases from the jobs that they do. Yes, they are getting bonuses.

I was at a small, little almost farmers market, multigenerational market down in Niles, Michigan, just north of Notre Dame, Shelton's Farm Market. They have 83 employees. The owners gave every employee there a bonus. I talked to one of them who literally stocks the shelves. He got $600.

He said: You know, Mr. Upton . . .

I said: Call me Fred.

He said: This wasn't just crumbs. This made a real difference.

I said: What are you going to do with that $600?

He said: You know, my wife has cancer, and I bought her a new dress.

He was so excited that that increase in the take-home pay was actually going to do some real benefit for him and his family.

I was at a groundbreaking at Pfizer, my largest employer, in Portage, Michigan. Not only did they announce that they are going to, in the next couple of years, invest $6 billion--that is B as in ``big''--in new facilities here in North America, they also announced that they are going to give $100 million in bonuses for all of their nonexecutive employees. That is real money, and that is thanks to tax reform.

Mr. Walberg talked a little bit about some of the utilities in Michigan. A little bit earlier today, I was with the chair of Consumers Energy, a very important player; and the chair of DTE Energy as well. Yes, because of the reduction in the corporate tax rates, they are going to pass on those savings, as they want to, to the consumers. In the case of Consumers Energy, they are going to give back $200 million in rate relief to virtually every one of their customers that they serve across the board. That is good news. It has to be approved by the Public Service Commission, but, in fact, that money is going to be there.

So whether it is a small business who is now goin to get a lower rate in that passthrough rate, which means a lot, keeping your deductions on healthcare, seeing the highest corporate rate being reduced to 21 percent--and I remember well that debate that we had between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama back in 2012. In September of 2012, the question was on tax reform, and even Barack Obama said that he would support lowering that corporate tax rate to 25 percent, because we were already at the highest corporate tax rate in the world. That is what this bill did, and thank goodness.

The last point I would make is I was tired of economic growth being at .7 percent or 1 percent. We can do better than that. This bill is now starting to lead the way to see that happen. In fact, the report even this week, I think, is predicting a 3.5 percent growth rate for calendar year 2018.

That is a far cry from where we were just a few years ago. I dare say, in large part, it is due because workers are, in fact, getting more money from their paychecks. We have reduced the corporate rates so companies, instead of having an incentive to go overseas, as they did with my largest employer in one of my counties a few years ago, they now have a reason to come home and invest that money here.

So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for hosting this hour. I look forward to the other folks' comments tonight.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 725, I call up the bill (H.R. 772) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve and clarify certain disclosure requirements for restaurants and similar retail food establishments, and to amend the authority to bring proceedings under section 403A, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 772.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 772, is a bipartisan piece of legislation introduced by Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Tony Cardenas to amend the Food and Drug Administration's menu labeling rule that was issued in November of 2014.

The goal of the bill was to make implementation of the nutrition disclosure law useful for consumers and workable for food service establishments. The existing regulatory framework, which has not yet been implemented, is not only cumbersome for the food industry, but it also impedes businesses' ability to provide meaningful information that customers can use to make nutrition decisions.

The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act is critical to avoid harming consumers' choices, jobs, and, certainly, small businesses. This bill was drafted to address the challenges of an overly prescriptive, one-size-fits-all approach to regulation affecting a very, very diverse industry.

We need to ensure that the law works for all food establishments: convenience stores, supermarkets, grocery stores, pizza shops. All have enormous challenges complying with the regulations as written.

This bill is going to provide those entities with the flexibility and, frankly, the certainty that they need to comply without compromising consumers' access to nutrition information. The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act will establish a more reasonable standard for Federal regulations and allow nutritional information to be provided by a remote access menu for establishments where the majority of orders, in fact, are placed off premises.

Consumers should have this information when they are placing an order. A menu board may work for some businesses where customers order at the counter where they also pay, but for an establishment where most people now order online or from a phone, having the calorie information when they pick up their order won't be very helpful to that consumer.

This legislation also takes steps to preserve local foods and fresh items that might be sold at just a few locations. To do so, the bill clarifies that menu labeling regulations are intended for standard menu items, defined as those items with substantially the same recipe prepared in substantially the same way with substantially the same food components that are routinely included on a menu or menu board or are routinely offered as a self-service food or food on display at 20 or more locations.

This bill also eliminates draconian penalties that are required in current law by removing criminal felony penalties for store managers and allowing restaurants and retailers to take corrective actions. This shields small-business owners and their employees from frivolous lawsuits based on inadvertent human error. No one ought to be criminalized for putting too many pickles on a sandwich or maybe not enough olives. This bill further clarifies that establishments will have 90 days to correct a violation before FDA brings enforcement action.

The food retail sector employs--let's face it--millions of Americans and provides access to affordable, healthy options. The Federal Government shouldn't impose arbitrary regulations that are going to cause unnecessary harm to businesses and consumers.

The businesses impacted by this bill widely support providing consumers with nutritional information to better inform their food decisions, but they want to do it in a practical and a commonsense way. This legislation provides clear guidance to small-business owners, ensuring compliance and, at the same time, delivering critical information.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues for their work on both sides of the aisle. I urge its passage today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I have other speakers, so I am going to stall a little bit for time here. I am told that some of them may be at Jimmy John's trying to get through that menu wondering if they should have olives or pickles or Dijon mustard or mayonnaise, but they are on their way.

I want to say we all want consumer information--we do--but we ought to be able to agree that food service establishments shouldn't face Federal criminal penalties for inadvertent failures to comply with the FDA's framework.

Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, food labeling has to be truthful and non-misleading. Food labeling that doesn't meet FDA's standard for truthful and non-misleading is deemed misbranded. Under U.S. Code, introducing misbranded food into commerce is, in fact, a prohibited act, and the liable party shall be imprisoned for up to a year, fined not more than $1,000, or both.

Food to which these menu labeling requirements apply is deemed misbranded if the FDA's rule requirement is not met, so it is not necessary that the person intentionally misleads customers. Under FDA's framework, merely adding that extra olive or pepperoni is going to render the calorie content on the menu misleading and the chef then becomes criminal.

Come on. People say that the FDA won't put people in jail over this, so I don't think there ought to be an issue codifying that in statute. The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act will give folks an opportunity to correct inadvertent mistakes so long as they were acting in good faith, and they are going to make standards far more reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Walberg), who is a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, might I ask how much time each side has remaining on this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I might say the previous speaker, my friend, asked about what the original stakeholders had in mind before these regs were written.

I was one of those. This was my bill. This was a bipartisan bill offered by Jim Matheson and Fred Upton a lot of years ago. It was never our intent to put people behind bars for having some misinformation based on the number of olives or pickles or Dijon or mayonnaise. It is just wrong. It was not our intent to do what the FDA has now done.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), the author of this bill and a member of our committee, where it passed 39-14.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues that this bill is supported by literally hundreds of national State and local organizations, including the National Grocers Association, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the Food Marketing Institute, the American Pizza Community, the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, amongst many, many others.

I want to also reiterate that this bill, again, is bipartisan and has passed the Energy and Commerce Committee 39-14, in this Congress, and last year in the House, where it passed 266-144.

The bottom line is this: it clarifies that establishments acting in good faith will not be penalized, particularly in a criminal way, for inadvertent human error in reasonable variations in serving sizes and ingredients, giving them 90 days to correct a violation before enforcement action is brought by the FDA.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the prior speaker that, in fact, the President issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of this bill, which keeps the government open.

But I also rise in support of this bill and in strong support of a 6- year, long-term funding for CHIP.

We all came to Congress to fight for our district, and particularly our kids. The Michigan CHIP serves nearly 40,000 kids, and if CHIP isn't reauthorized long term, it is going to be disastrous for our communities, which is why they are depending on us, which is why it is in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, back in 2015, I helped broker the bipartisan, bicameral deal that led us to the last reauthorization of CHIP. It wasn't easy, but we got there by working together. Over the course of the past year, we have been steadfast in our resolve to reauthorize CHIP.

In our committee, we worked tirelessly to advance commonsense legislation that is going to extend CHIP, as well as community health centers. Last November, we passed the comprehensive bill on the House floor. Later in the year, we passed a CR that included short-term funding for CHIP.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does that. I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1733) to direct the Secretary of Energy to review and update a report on the energy and environmental benefits of the re-refining of used lubricating oil.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 1733, was introduced by Energy and Commerce Committee member Susan Brooks from Indiana on March 27 of this year. The legislation went through regular order, and it was reported by the full committee, without amendment, by a voice vote.

This bill, H.R. 1733, requires the Secretary of Energy to review and update a report on the energy and environmental benefits of re-refining used lubricating oil. The bill reauthorizes a study that was previously directed under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

We know that recycling used lubricating oil provides environmental benefits. It does, in fact, reduce energy consumption, and, yes, it produces high-quality products for consumers.

H.R. 1733 is a good bipartisan bill. I want to thank Mrs. Brooks for her hard work on this important issue and the other side of the aisle for working with us to bring the bill to the floor this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1733, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), who is a member of the committee and the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I would remind my colleagues that this is a bipartisan bill. I would like to think we can pass this on a voice vote. I, again, commend the gentlewoman from Indiana, our committee, and the staff for getting this done. We hope that the Senate will take it up soon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2872) to amend the Federal Power Act to promote hydropower development at existing nonpowered dams, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 2872, was introduced by Energy and Commerce Committee member Larry Bucshon in June of this year. The legislation went through regular order and was reported by the full committee with a bipartisan amendment by a voice vote.

This bill promotes hydropower by development at existing nonpowered dams by establishing an expedited licensing process that will result in a final decision on an application in 2 years or less. We know hydropower is a clean, renewable, and reliable source of energy that provides low-cost electricity to millions of Americans.

As we have learned through hearings at the Energy and Commerce Committee, the current regulatory process places new hydropower projects at existing nonpowered dams at a significant disadvantage. The current process takes way too long and it creates too much uncertainty, burdening consumers with additional unnecessary costs and preventing jobs and economic opportunities.

This bill, H.R. 2872, makes important changes to the process to enable FERC to issue a decision in 2 years or less. The legislation also requires that FERC, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the

Interior, to develop a list of existing nonpowered Federal dams that have the greatest potential for non-Federal hydropower development.

This is a good bipartisan bill. I thank Dr. Bucshon for his hard work on this important issue and for working with our colleagues across the aisle to bring the bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC, December 12, 2017.

Hon. Greg Walden,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Walden: I write concerning H.R. 2872, the

Promoting Hydropower Development at Existing Nonpowered Dams

Act. This legislation includes matters that fall within the

Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House of Representatives in an

expeditious manner, and accordingly, the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure will forego action on the

bill. However, this is conditional on our mutual

understanding that foregoing consideration of the bill does

not prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment

of conferees or to any future jurisdictional claim over the

subject matters contained in the bill or similar legislation

that fall within the Committee's Rule X jurisdiction. Lastly,

should a conference on the bill be necessary, I request your

support for the appointment of conferees from the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure during any House-Senate

conference convened on this or related legislation.

I would ask that a copy of this letter and your response

acknowledging our jurisdictional interest be included in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the measure on

the House floor, to memorialize our understanding.

I look forward to working with the Committee on Energy and

Commerce as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Bill Shuster,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work on these bills together. I really appreciate his hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), the sponsor of this legislation, in support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I again commend members on both sides of the aisle for getting this bill to the floor, and the staff. I appreciate the leadership for scheduling this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2880) to amend the Federal Power Act to promote closed-loop pumped storage hydropower, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 2880, was introduced by Energy and Commerce Committee member Morgan Griffith in June of this year. The legislation went through regular order, and it was reported by the full committee with a bipartisan amendment by a voice vote.

The bill promotes closed-loop pumped storage hydropower projects by establishing an expedited licensing process that is going to result in a final decision on an application in 2 years or less.

We know that hydropower is a clean, renewable, and reliable source of energy that provides low-cost electricity to millions of Americans across the country. Closed-loop pumped storage is different than conventional hydro. These types of projects move water between two reservoirs located at different elevations in order to store energy and then generate that electricity.

As we have learned through hearings at the Energy and Commerce Committee, the complete regulatory process places new pumped storage hydropower projects at a significant disadvantage.

Pumped storage hydro has been around for almost 100 years, but with more intermittent renewables coming online, the need for grid-scale storage is more important than ever. The current process to license pumped storage takes way too long and creates too much uncertainty, burdening consumers with additional unnecessary costs and preventing jobs and economic opportunities.

This bill makes important changes to the process to enable FERC to issue a decision in 2 years or less. The legislation also requires FERC to hold a workshop to explore potential opportunities for development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites.

This bill is a good, bipartisan bill. I thank Mr. Griffith for his hard work on this important issue and for working with our colleagues across the aisle to bring this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers either.

Again, I want to commend my colleagues for pushing this legislation, for working with both sides of the aisle. Again, my congrats to my counterpart, my ranking member on the Energy Subcommittee, and all my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 6 p.m. on Monday next.

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, I rise today to recognize a proud son of Portage, Michigan, Pastor Dennis Jokela of the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department.

He has been a pillar of our community through his work as a small- business owner, a judge for the Michigan Vocational Education Society, and as a corporal and chaplain at the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department as well.

I know I speak for many as we thank, in particular, our first responders all across the country, sheriffs, and police officers, and pray to keep them and their families safe.

Pastor Jokela's dedication to public service runs deep as a seven- time decorated veteran of Vietnam and Cambodia--overdue medals my team was able to help him obtain--a pastor with the Michigan Boot Camp for Troubled Teens at Fort Custer, and his work with the homeless. His commitment to community and country are unquestionable.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Pastor Jokela for his service here and at home. We are all so honored to be with him today. I thank him for his kind words.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, H.R. 3388, the SELF DRIVE Act. This legislation and technology is, indeed, going to play a very important role in improving motor vehicle safety and addressing the rising number of traffic-related fatalities.

As the birthplace of the automobile industry, my home State of Michigan is a well-known home to innovative suppliers and manufacturers that make our cars and trucks safer, more efficient, and, yes, more affordable. It is also a nexus of engineering and research talent, which makes it perfect for the development of the next phase of vehicular mobility: autonomous vehicles. It is here.

In 2015, more than 35,000 folks lost their lives on U.S. highways. Early estimates indicate that number may have increased to more than 40,000 last year. In Michigan, there were 1,064 traffic facilities, a 7 percent increase over the previous year. NHTSA has found that 94 percent of these fatalities are related to human error.

This legislation on autonomous vehicles, which includes the PAVE Act, authored by myself and my good friend from Michigan, Debbie Dingell, will go a long way to taking human error out of driving and making roads safer for every American.

Forget about ``The Jetsons.'' It is over. The future of the automobile is here, and this bill will give the automotive industry the tools it needs to completely revolutionize how we are going to get around for generations to come.