Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 8.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, the world does face many challenges and risks, and when it comes to climate change, we on this side believe that we have to take an economically realistic and pragmatic approach. To address climate as well as other risks, we support policies that will promote access to affordable and reliable energy that allows our communities to grow economically, to adapt to changes, and to be resilient both now and in the future. We also support technological innovation and the development of resilient, efficient infrastructure both to reduce emissions and to withstand climate-related events regardless of their causes. The underlying bill that we are about ready to pass promotes access to affordable and reliable energy, diversity, efficiency, and modernization of all of our energy infrastructures. Passage of this bill would help ensure that we have critical energy infrastructure in place to withstand new threats, whether they be from climate or other risks such as terrorism and cyber attacks. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that here in the United States, thanks to innovation--as we have expanded access to our abundant energy supplies as we have over the last couple of decades--energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have actually significantly declined, and they are projected to remain below 2005 levels through 2040 and will continue to decline as a share of worldwide emissions, particularly when compared to other nations like India and China. So for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would establish a DOE loan program to support distributed generation. While I support some of the goals in this amendment--distributed generation, microgrids, combined heat and power--I cannot support a new loan guarantee program given the failures this administration has had in issuing loans. I remember one called Solyndra a long time ago. In any event, this amendment is too broad. Locally grown energy may make some sense in some circumstances but not in others. There are often economic reasons to use nonlocal energy sources and to use them on a larger scale than distributed generation. Moreover, this provision is duplicative of other DOE programs as well as tax incentives and State programs that encourage the use of distributed renewable energy. Circumstances do vary across regions, so States should decide whether and how to encourage distributed generation. The Federal Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleagues that this amendment clarifies that electric plants can be considered reliable without having to enter into supply contracts that are greater than a year. I think that it is a good amendment, and we are willing to accept it.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Section 1101 makes important improvements to FERC's process for reviewing interstate natural gas pipelines. As we all know, the demand for natural gas is growing, which requires new and modernized pipeline infrastructure. It has got to happen. Unfortunately, the permitting process is becoming increasingly complex and challenging. Rate hikes hit the families and businesses that can least afford it the hardest, the most vulnerable. So we have worked very diligently to find some agreement on this provision. We have held hearings, received technical assistance from FERC, and accepted many of their recommendations. Section 1101 would authorize concurrent permitting reviews, require more transparency through the process, and allow for the use of new survey technology for citing pipelines. Just yesterday, Mr. Chairman, in a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, FERC Chairman Bay acknowledged the need for new pipeline capacity and signaled his support for the enhanced transparency provisions and the regulatory dashboard that is required by section 1101. So this amendment, if passed, would strike a commonsense approach to introduce greater public transparency and accountability for Federal and State permitting agencies, and therefore I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I do so to oppose the amendment because, as we all know, this amendment reauthorizes the Federal Weatherization Assistance Program at $2.2 billion through 2020 and the State Energy Program at $375 million through 2020. But our feeling is that it is not needed because the Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program is already extremely well funded. I support weatherization, as I think most of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle do, but Congress has been funding the program at or near the Department's requested levels. So this is, in essence, billions above in new spending on an existing program that the Department of Energy has not requested. I would note that the 2009 stimulus bill included an extra $5 billion to the Department of Energy for weatherization, roughly 17 times what was originally appropriated for that year. Furthermore, using experiments considered the gold standard for evidence, researchers from UC Berkeley, MIT, and the University of Chicago recently released a report on a first-of-its-kind field test of the Federal Weatherization Assistance Program. The study found that the costs of energy efficiency investments were about double the actual savings, that model-projected savings are 2\1/ 2\ times the actual savings, and that, even when accounting for the broader societal benefits of energy efficiency investments, the costs will substantially outweigh the benefits. The average rate of return is a minus 9\1/2\ percent annually. So, Mr. Chairman, the overall legislation today that is before us is extremely specific in authorizing budget-neutral spending for energy security efforts only. Authorizing additional money--beyond requested amounts--as this Weatherization amendment does, does not have the offset. Therefore, I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. But I support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Department of Energy to submit a report to Congress on the potential effects that the commercial utilization of carbon capture and sequestration could have on the economy, energy infrastructure, and greenhouse gas emission goals. I support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a good amendment. It directs the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other relevant agencies and stakeholders, to conduct a study on the feasibility of establishing an ethane storage and distribution hub in the U.S. The gentleman and I have talked about it over the last number of months. I think it is a good amendment, and it adds to the bill, so I support the amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Again, I support the amendment. We have no objection to the amendment. I think that it is worthwhile, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I want to stress that this authorizes voluntary vegetation management within 150 feet of the exterior boundary of the right-of-way, prevents the sale of vegetation, and limits legal liability. I think it is a good amendment. Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. UPTON. But there is no way I could oppose this amendment, let me just say from the beginning. This amendment directs the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce to jointly establish an energy enterprise competition to promote youth interest in careers in science, technology, engineering, and math, especially as those fields related to energy. I heard from one of my heroes today, Dean Kamen, probably the best inventor of our time. He has, on his own, started just a wonderful program employing hundreds of thousands of youth all around the country, all around the world, a competition called FIRST Robotics, to really get high school and middle school students invested in looking at the science of so many different things in competitions that I participated in. My Governor, Rick Snyder, who was in town tonight, was honored as I think the number one guy in the Nation earlier this year in Michigan. We are going to have the national competition in Detroit, I want to say, in 2 years. But I have been at the regional competition for this, and where kids and mentors and companies are invested, this is the future of science in so many different things. This is a great amendment. I would urge all my colleagues to vote for it. I know that, as I look at my friendship with Dean Kamen, he will probably never talk to me again if I oppose the amendment. It is a great amendment. It should have been done as part of our committee mark. I look forward to working with the Education committees and appropriators to make sure that it is funded. It is a good thing. I would urge all my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I am delighted that Ms. Meng brought this to our attention. Mr. Royce is a very dear friend. I know we all share the same thoughts. I also want to just thank Pete Sessions, chairman of the Committee on Rules, for making this amendment in order. I would urge all my colleagues to support the amendment and appreciate it being offered tonight. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but again, I strongly support this amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the 5 minutes in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of Energy to study the maximum level of volatility that is consistent with the safest practical shipment of crude oil by rail. Every one of us here wants the safe transportation of all of our natural resources. Rail transport is getting larger and larger. We need to make sure that it is safe. I think it is a worthy amendment. I would urge all my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I support the amendment.

Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.