Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6140, the ``Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Act,'' is a bipartisan bill sponsored by my Energy and Commerce colleagues, Bill Flores of Texas, along with Jerry McNerney of California. We considered this bill through regular order in Committee and the Full Committee reported the bill favorably, as amended, by a voice vote. Imagine designing a new car that is safer, less expensive, and gets triple the mileage than anything we see on the road today. But when the vehicle is ready to hit the road, there is no gas to fill up the tank. Nuclear innovators face a similar--and very critical--challenge as they work to bring several promising advanced nuclear technologies to the market. These new designs require fuels that have different attributes than what is used in today's fleet of nuclear reactors, but the fuels are not commercially available. H.R. 6140 addresses this challenge by ensuring nuclear innovators will have the advanced fuels needed to develop and demonstrate their products commercially. The bill provides a direct path to align advanced nuclear fuel supply with initial demand for the deployment of next generation nuclear technologies. It provides for the development of the technical information necessary to assist the creation of the regulatory and licensing framework for these fuels. The bill directs the Secretary of Energy to establish a temporary program, operating to support a public-private partnership, that will make what is known as high-assay low-enriched uranium available for use in the first-of-a-kind advanced nuclear reactor designs. It provides for the surveys and information necessary to inform the new market development and cost recovery for initial federal investments. In short, the Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Act takes practical, targeted steps to ensure the infrastructure will be in place in time to enable the development and deployment of a new generation of nuclear technologies in the United States. This is an important bill for ensuring the nation's international leadership on nuclear technology, for ensuring our energy security, and achieving our clean energy goals. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 6140.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of this legislation today. I thank my colleague Debbie Dingell. The two of us helped cosponsor the spousal impoverishment bill, which is part of this bill. There was no objection to that, and I am delighted that we are getting it done. But I want to particularly take this time and just thank Joe Barton for his leadership on the ACE Kids Act. All of us come here to this House for particular causes that really grab our interest and attention. Joe Barton has been so good--some would say like a dog to a Frisbee--in getting the ACE Kids Act to the House floor. This bill is going to save lives. It was bipartisan. Frankly, I wanted to move it as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, but we didn't have a CBO score. We couldn't get it done. We had plenty of meetings over the last couple of years on this, and here it is. We are going to get it done. Hopefully, the Senate is going to get it done, and we are going to get it to the President's desk. This is probably the last time that Joe Barton is actually managing a bill on the House floor, and it is appropriate that this is his bill, that it is his engine that is moving this train that really is going to make a difference for families across the country. So I say thank you, Joe Barton.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, safe drinking water for our families is something that we all should agree on, and this bill delivers on that promise. It makes certain that communities like Parchment, in my district, are able to deal with the PFAS contamination issue. In Parchment, thanks to the proactive efforts of the State of Michigan, we discovered PFAS in the water, and we immediately sprang into action to solve the problem in the short term--local, State, and Federal folks all working in tandem to fix the problem. Specifically, the bill does that by increasing authorization for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. It critically works to modernize our aging water infrastructure by providing more resources. Drinking water quality remains high across the country, but improvements can and must be made now. This bipartisan bill is yet a very important step forward. I look forward to supporting it and would urge all of my colleagues on both sides to do the same. I want to thank Chairman Shuster for getting this bill to the floor, and I look forward to ultimately getting it to the President for his signature.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 490) to reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project involving the Gibson Dam.

Mr. UPTON. 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. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill, S. 490, authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, upon request, to extend by 6 years the time period during which construction must commence on a hydroelectric project involving the Gibson Dam, which is located on the Sun River in Montana. Additionally, FERC may reinstate the construction license if it is expired. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent back on June 28, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation so that we can send it to the President's desk. I would also note that when the Senate passed this bill, they also passed five other House bills extending construction licenses for hydro projects in North Carolina, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia. These now have become law. So this is the last one. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte). I would note that he was the sponsor of the House companion bill. This is a Senate bill that we are taking up, but, obviously, he has great interest in it. I would note that we passed it with strong bipartisan support through the Energy Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. We were going to take this up and pass it like that, but the Senate acted first, which is why we are taking up the Senate bill. It does have bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. 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. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. 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. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. 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. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. UPTON

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

Mr. UPTON. 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. UPTON. 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. UPTON. 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.

Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. 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.

Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. 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.

Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. 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.