Michael Doyle

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentleman that maybe he wasn't here when I just read the fact that China is imposing a tax on their industries, is looking at cap-and- trade. I would also say to the gentleman who says why we want a study for a bill that is going to abolish these regulations, your bill is never going to become law. This bill has a veto threat. We need to do a study to see what the implications are on our industries. I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOYLE. I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chair, I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee and on the Energy and Power Subcommittee, which has primary jurisdiction of H.R. 910. As such, I have been at several hearings on this bill where my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have claimed that the pending EPA regulations on greenhouse gases will cause our industries to pack up and move overseas, taking with them our jobs and our carbon emissions. At a committee hearing on this bill held in March of this year, our chairman told us, ``We live in a global economy with global competition, and nations like China absolutely have no intention of similarly burdening their industries. Manufacturing will leave this country unless the EPA is stopped.'' Madam Chair, unfortunately, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have forgotten to check with the Chinese. Just 2 days ago, a report came out saying China to Tax Energy Usage of Energy-Intensive Industries. The report says that China will impose a tax on energy usage of eight industrial sectors, including iron and steel, aluminum and cement. Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of National Development and Reform, said that China has launched pilot carbon emission trading schemes in some of their provinces. So much for this idea that all these jobs are going to China because there's no taxing there or that they're not looking at a trading scheme. While I dispute the claims of my colleagues that China has no intention of addressing climate change, what I am more concerned about is the varying claims that these regulations will ship jobs overseas. What we have as an amendment here is to address that very question: Are these industries here in America that utilize energy-intensive processes and have special trade pressures, what will the effect of these regulations be on those types of industries? In the last Congress, I worked with Congressman Inslee to develop and address job and carbon leakage issues when we did the American Clean Energy Security Act. We were able to develop a fair system of distributing these allowances. This amendment proposes to do the same thing.

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. DOYLE. I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, let me just close by saying to my colleagues that all we're asking for is to put some good data behind this. Let's study it. Let's have the EPA take a look at this. Let's see what the effects are on our energy-intensive industries, because this is an issue we're going to have to deal with eventually, and we want to have good data behind it. Let's not have all the stories be anecdotal. Let's have the agency study this, and let's work together to find solutions to protect our industries while we clean up our environment for our kids and our grandkids. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Girls of Steel robotics team on winning the Rookie All-Star Award at the 2011 Pittsburgh Regional F.I.R.S.T. Robotics Competition held on March 12th and 13th. Because of their hard work and impressive performance, the team has been invited to compete at the F.I.R.S.T. Championship in St. Louis in April. The championship is the final and largest competition of the robotics season and features teams from across the world. F.I.R.S.T., which stands for ``For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology,'' is an organization dedicated to introducing our youth to the world of science and technology. This year alone, approximately 250,000 students are gaining practical, team-based engineering experiences by participating in F.I.R.S.T. As a co-chair of the Congressional Robotics Caucus, I think competitions such as these are outstanding tools for getting students interested in careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. I believe our nation's future economic growth and prosperity depends upon getting young people interested and engaged in scientific pursuits, and I want to commend organizations like F.I.R.S.T. for the important work they do in that regard. The Girls of Steel team is made up of 24 young women from high schools in and around the Pittsburgh area. In their first year of competition, and using a robot they designed and built in only six weeks, the girls went up against 39 other teams from across the United States and Canada. In this regional competition, teams were challenged to construct robots that could place tubes on elevated pegs. After finishing this first part of the task, the robots were required to deploy smaller robots capable of climbing to the top of a 10-foot pole. Upon reaching the top, the ``minibots'' would set off sensors to signal completion of the task. The Girls of Steel performed well in the qualification round, and their success continued throughout the seeding and elimination rounds of the competition. In recognition of their hard work, intelligence, and teamwork, I want to mention each of these inspiring young ladies by name. They are Grace Handler, Calista Frederick-Jaskiewicz, Hallie Goldstein, Nila Ravi, Elizabeth Kysel, Rachel Lischy, Olivia Parks, Bryce Volk, Jaden Barney, Maya Chandrasekaran, Julia DiPietro, Campbell Konrad, Rachel Round, Jordyn Zechender, Naoka Gunawardena, Dakota Calvert, Jeannette Melanie Young, Tayler Wright, Kathryn Hendrickson, Pragna Mannam, Anna Maria Sicenica, Dahee Kim, Zhimi Ding, and Xinchao Li. I also want to express my appreciation to the Carnegie Mellon University Field Robotics Center, which has mentored the Girls of Steel. As a result of their efforts, more young women are gaining real- world technological experiences which will certainly aid them in the future. I wish the Girls of Steel the best of luck as they head to St. Louis to compete this April, and I hope for their continual success.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, today the House Republicans want to eliminate funding for NPR, some because they think the government shouldn't operate a news service and some because they think the reporting is biased. I believe they're wrong on both counts. Public radio plays an important role in our communities as a source of news and entertainment. My colleagues should consider the studies that show that NPR listeners are more aware of indisputable facts than viewers and listeners of most other news sources. Opponents of NPR hold up a video hit piece to show that NPR is biased. Even Glenn Beck's Web site, The Blaze, explains that the video is neither fair nor balanced, how it's basically a lie. And my colleagues should consider the fact that many NPR programs have nothing to do with news or politics. Where's the bias in ``Car Talk''? There might be a bias against Pintos or Pacers, but not a political bias. Where's the political bias in music broadcasts? There might be a bias against Prokofiev, but not a political bias. Even so, if this bill were simply to defund NPR's direct public contribution, then at least it would only impact the organization with the alleged political bias, which is, again, based on a lie. But this bill goes further. It hurts local public radio stations and tens of millions of listeners from across the country. If this bill is enacted, communities across the country will be denied programming that their residents want. Whatever happened to the philosophy that more choice is better? My colleagues, this is bad public policy. This is a terrible bill. This is a terrible waste of our time, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DOYLE. I rise in opposition to the Walden amendment. Mr. Chairman, the FCC's Open Internet Order brings certainty and clarity to a debate that has raged on for almost a decade, allowing Internet service providers as well as edge and content providers to fully focus on broadband investment, innovation, and other pressing business matters. In fact, broadband providers like AT&T, Time Warner and Comcast have all expressed support for the rules and have indicated that the FCC has achieved a balanced result. Wall Street investment analysts have also concluded that the FCC's Open Internet Order removed any regulatory overhang for telecom and cable companies and reflected a ``light touch'' version of regulation that will not hinder growth and innovation. At the end of the day, the FCC's rules simply maintain the status quo principles that most broadband providers have already embraced. The rules preserve a number of existing business models for broadband providers to pursue as well as paving the way for new innovative offerings. Contrary to the claims by opponents of the FCC, these high level ``rules of the road'' do not allow the agency to micromanage broadband providers. They balance clarity with flexibility. And they don't require broadband providers to seek permission from the commission before deploying a network management practice. In fact, the rules specifically recognize the unique network management challenges across different platforms and afford broadband providers the latitude they need to manage their networks effectively. Some opponents of the FCC argue that we don't need any rules in this area because antitrust laws are sufficient. But antitrust remedies occur after harm occurs. These rules, in contrast, allow companies and innovators regulatory certainty, a key component that allows businesses to thrive. Mr. Chairman, the FCC's open Internet rules are just these three simple promises: One to consumers--that we can visit any Web site we want, using any service we want, on any device we want. Two for innovators--that they can create new tools without getting permission from the government or the company that the consumers use to get online. Three--that we provide a cop on the beat to make sure that both sides are doing what they're supposed to and to be a neutral arbitrator. That's all this does. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It represents bad process and bad policy, and it should be rejected. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. Day after day, new studies are showing just what's at stake in this debate over health care reform. The Department of Health and Human Services released a staggering report stating that up to 129 million Americans with preexisting medical conditions could lose their newly enacted protection from insurance company discrimination. The CBO has reported that this Republican repeal bill would add $230 billion to the Federal debt. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid found that repealing health care reform would reduce the solvency of the Medicare program by 12 years. Repeal of last year's health care reforms would raise insurance costs for people in my home district of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and across the country, whether they are small business owners, retirees, working Americans, or recent college graduates. Health care reform took power away from the insurance companies and gave it back to the American consumers. Repeal of this reform would allow private health insurance companies to go back to the practice of cherry-picking low-risk customers and sticking it to the rest of us. What's more, it would increase prescription drug costs for seniors who fall into the doughnut hole, raising the average cost of prescription drugs for these seniors by over $500 this year and by over $3,000 in 2020. In a nutshell, the Republican repeal means this: children with preexisting conditions denied coverage; young people up to age 26 can't stay on their parents' plans; pregnant women and breast and prostate cancer patients could be thrown off their insurance policies; seniors will pay more for their drugs; the deficit will increase by $230 billion; small businesses pay higher taxes. That doesn't sound very good to me. Repeal helps no one, no one but the insurance industry. I adamantly oppose this effort to repeal this health care reform bill.

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3874) to amend the Safe Drinking Act to reduce lead in drinking water.

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

Mr. DOYLE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. When people's health and safety is involved, we should never skimp on that. If we are going to err, let's err on the side of doing the most we can do based on the technology we have with a bill that does not put any onerous burden on manufacturers, by their own statements, and which many dozens of organizations and utility companies support and that has the support of conservative Senators, cosponsors like Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma and Senator Alexander of Tennessee, and a unanimous vote in the Senate. Let's have a unanimous vote here in the House. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I shall consume. Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to manage consideration of S. 3874, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. This is the Senate companion to Ms. Eshoo's bill, the Get the Lead Out Act. This bill will update the national lead content standard to nearly eradicate lead in faucets and fixtures which currently contribute up to 20 percent of human lead exposure, according to the EPA. In a 21st century America, we have a responsibility to do more to protect our children and families against the lead exposure acquired through plumbing systems. The Safe Drinking Water Act, which determines the national lead content standards, currently allows up to 8 percent lead content for faucets and other plumbing fixtures and limits the amount of lead that can leach from plumbing into drinking water. But health studies have concluded that much smaller amounts of lead exposure can have serious impacts on children and adults, including kidney disease, reduced IQ, hypertension, hearing loss, and brain damage. States have recognized this threat, and in 2006, California enacted the toughest lead content standard for drinking water faucets, fittings, and plumbing systems anywhere in the world. Since then, Vermont and Maryland have also adopted identical laws, and the District of Columbia and Virginia are considering similar legislation. This bill mirrors the California legislation and will provide for a consistent and effective national standard to ensure that no one will be exposed to a serious health threat which can easily be avoided. This legislation has garnered the support of State health officials, numerous children's health organizations, prominent national environmental organizations, local governments, scientific associations, and national drinking water associations. The Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, the association that represents all major faucet companies and other manufacturers of drinking water plumbing fittings, also supports this legislation. On December 16, this bill passed the Senate unanimously with bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to vote for this critical bill in the House today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend--and he is my good friend--that the bill passed unanimously in the Senate. I know he likes to invoke Senator Boxer's name a lot. But the fact of the matter is, every Republican and every Democrat in the United States Senate supported this bill. I would like to make a couple of points. He talks about the lead in the service lines. And that's true, utility companies--and we have literally dozens of utilities that are in support of this bill--are already constantly making efforts to get lead out of their lines. What we are trying to do is not to make that an exercise in futility by allowing the faucets to return the lead into the lines that they are working so hard to take out. We talk about preemption. Right now, the standard is 8 percent, so that's a maximum. And the gentleman is correct: a lot of States have gone under that 8 percent limit. But the new standard that we are proposing, the 0.25 percent, is state of the art. That is about as low as you can get it, based on the technology that we have available today. So in effect, the idea that States would somehow be able to preempt and go below that, it just isn't possible as we speak today. So it sort of deals with the preemption issue. The bill doesn't require people to buy replacements. No one is forced to replace their faucets. And lastly, and dealing with the issue of cost, I have a letter from the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, and I would like to quote from it. In the one paragraph dealing with cost, it says: ``It is safe to say that this one-time cost for faucet manufacturers will not be anywhere in the magnitude of `hundreds of millions of dollars' as set forth in the House report for H.R. 5320, the AQUA bill. Unfortunately, the faucet industry source for those numbers failed to vet the calculations with the industry representatives prior to providing the estimate to CBO. We find those numbers to be unreliable and greatly exaggerated.''

Mr. DOYLE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. So when you put this all together and you see that we have a piece of legislation here which passed the Senate unanimously, and we have an opportunity to set a national standard which is state of the art with the technology that we have today, at a cost that the industry has said is minimal, and many are already complying with, it seems that it would be a shame to let this opportunity pass to protect the health of millions of Americans by making changes that are not onerous on the industry by their own letter, and they endorse the bill and it had unanimous support in the Senate. I would hope that my colleagues in the House will see fit, in a bipartisan fashion, to do this for Americans, make people more safe, improve the quality of water that Americans drink, and do so at a cost that is not onerous to the public or the industry. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would just say to my friend that Senator Inhofe and Senator Alexander are cosponsors of this bill. I think those two gentlemen, very conservative gentlemen, I think my friend would agree, have looked at the bill and are cosponsors of the bill. I would also say to my friend that I would be happy to share a copy of my letter from the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute with him if he would like to share a letter that he has from anyone who contradicts this. I believe we have shared this letter with your staff, and I hope you would look it over. I would say to the gentleman and my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I think we should try to do the best we can do for the American people when it comes to their health. It is true that a handful of States have already adopted lower standards, but it is just a handful of States. We have 50 States, and over 40 still have not done this. So I think it is important we set a national standard. This will in effect set a national standard which uses the best technologies available to get us as low as we can based on what we know today. The industry has said that we can do this at minimal cost to the industry. We force no individual to buy replacements. This is something people can choose to do if they want to. I think most families will take advantage of this. For the average faucet, if you look at a faucet that is about $85, and everyone knows when you go into a store, you can buy faucets that cost $500, and you can buy faucets that cost $30 or $40, or anywhere in between. But if you look at the average, which is around $80, what we are talking about is somewhere between $1.70 extra on a faucet, so we are not talking about a big cost. As I said, I have the industry letter, which I am happy to share with you, saying that they think that it is a good thing, too. So I would just say to my colleagues, let's do the best we can for all of America. Sure, a handful of States have already taken the lead and have gone further.

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say to my friend, the one thing I would agree with my friend on is that the House of Representatives is not the United States Senate. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I would also say to my friend, and I believe he may not have been present that day, but on May 26 of this year, we had a vote in committee on this bill, and Representative Barton voted for this bill in committee as part of our drinking water bill. So did 18 other Republicans. So the bill passed our committee with 45 members voting in favor.

Mr. DOYLE. Reclaiming my time, that bill was the companion bill here in the House, which was the same as the Boxer bill. It was Ms. Eshoo's bill, which passed the committee 45-1, with 18 Republicans supporting it, including Chairman Barton, who is my dear friend. So I would just say to my friend that I would be more concerned with someone coming up to a town hall meeting to me and asking me why we haven't done everything we could to get lead out of drinking water. The standard is 8 percent in my State; to my knowledge, we don't have a lower standard. So I certainly appreciate legislation like this which sets the lowest standard we can attain with the technology we have and do so in a way that's not onerous to either the public or the manufacturers who support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DOYLE

Mr. DOYLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Boucher, and to let Mr. Boucher know that it has been a privilege to work with him during our years together on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and especially during the 2 years he served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and of the Subcommittee on Communications Technology and the Internet. He has been a great colleague and partner in legislation and a great friend, and I want to wish Chairman Boucher only the best in his next steps. I also want to thank Chairman Waxman for strongly supporting this bill that will give local communities across this country access to their airwaves. I am grateful for the support that this bill has from both sides of the aisle, from myself, the former vice chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, to the future vice chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, this bill's lead cosponsor and my good friend, Lee Terry from Omaha. We have been working together to bring local community-oriented radio to more cities, counties, and neighborhoods across the country for 10 years now, and I would say to my friend that I think we are finally on the last leg of this journey. This bill will allow churches, schools, neighborhood groups, and others to put community-oriented programming on the air, and it will help first responders provide those communities with critical information in times of natural disasters and other emergencies. You see, when the Federal Communications Commission created the Low Power FM radio service, they sought to create opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow local schools, churches, and other community-based organizations to provide programming that is responsive to local community needs and interests. Congress, however, passed the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act in 2000, and many of those organizations were prevented from communicating to their members, supporters, and residents on the FM radio dial. That bill called for a field study performed by the MITRE Corporation, and for the FCC to recommend to us what we should do. In 2004, on a unanimous bipartisan basis, the Federal Communications Commission issued a report to Congress which stated that, ``Congress should readdress this issue and modify the statute to eliminate the third adjacent channel distant separation requirements for LPFM stations.'' For a second time, in November of 2007, and for a third time, again, in September 2009, all five FCC Commissioners agreed that Congress should lift the restriction on LPFM stations and allow them to license new stations in more communities. The bill we have under debate today, the Local Community Radio Act of 2009, does just that. When they are allowed to exist under current law, LPFM stations have proven to be a vital source of information during local or national emergencies. And these stations promote the arts and education from religious organizations, community groups, organizations promoting literacy, and many other civically oriented organizations; stations like: KOCZ in Opelousas, Louisiana, which is operated by the Southern Development Foundation, a group active in the African American community. The station broadcasts public affairs shows, religious programing, hip-hop and zydeco music 24 hours a day. Zydeco music is central to the cultural heritage of the Acadiana region but had mostly disappeared from the airwaves dominated by commercial radio; or WRFR in Rockland, Maine, which broadcasts talk and call-in shows on issues important to the community on a variety of things. Though six other stations have their transmitters in the station's home in Knox County, WRFR is the only station that originates its programming there; and WQRZ in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, which remained on the air during Hurricane Katrina and served as the Emergency Operations Center for Hancock County during the worst storm there in a century. But Congress has to act on the Commission's recommendations; otherwise, similar stations are prevented from operating in communities across America, communities like mine, which are too large to have any slots for any LPFM stations at 4th adjacent, but could fit several at 3rd. But you don't have to take my word for it--every FCC Commissioner since 2003 has vouched for this--or the MITRE Corporation's outside study's word for it either. We all know this is going to work because it already works. Currently, large commercial and noncommercial FM stations duplicate and extend their signals on these same 3rd adjacent channels that the FCC wants to also make available to new noncommercial stations. This bill has broad support, as evidenced in these letters from almost a dozen leaders, from Catholic and Protestant faiths like the United Church of Christ and the National Association of Evangelicals; a letter from two dozen national and local public interests, civil rights, local groups; and another letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and, finally, this letter from the National Federation of Community Broadcasters and the Prometheus Radio Project, all of whom support this bill. Exactly a year and a day ago, the House passed an earlier version of this legislation, H.R. 4711, a fine bill, but the broadcasters' concerns kept it bottled up in the Senate all year. I am pleased to tell you that at the 11th hour, in the nick of time the various stakeholders were able to reach an agreement over the disputed language, and all of the Senate holds have been lifted. This version of the bill was supported by everyone with a stake in broadcasting: Small noncommercial stations, big noncommercial stations like NPR, big commercial stations like the National Association of Broadcasters. This bill deserves my colleagues' support, unanimous support, as well. The time has finally come for Congress to rewrite this law. The time has come to make the airwaves available to the people they serve. As I said a year ago, the time has come to bring low power to the people. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for support of this legislation. List of Organizations That Sent Letters of Support Director--California Indian Heritage Council (No PDF), Association of California Water Agencies, Wateruse Association, American Water Works Association, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, La Clinica de La Raza, A Community Voice Louisiana, Nancy Skinner, Assemblywoman for the 14th District, National Resource Defense Council, California Safe Schools (no PDF). Planning and Conservation League, Council of the District of Columbia, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, California Public Health Association, Environmental Defense Fund, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Community Water Center, Southern California Watershed Alliance. Clean Water Action, Urban Semillas, Friends of the River, Institute for Socio-Economic Justice, Planning and Conservation League, North Richmond Shoreline Open Space Alliance, California League of Conservation Voters, California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health, San Jerardo Co-Op Inc, Karuk Tribe. Sierra Club, Consumer Union, Contra Costa Water District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Environmental Defense Fund, Ellen Corbett, 10th Senate District, Planning and Conservation League (second one), PMI, Vermont PRIG, and Action Now. I reserve the balance of my time.

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