Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan bill would strengthen our hand in foreign diplomacy at a time when America has lost its standing on the global stage. By exporting our excess crude oil, we can help our allies seeking a safe and secure supply of energy. Instead of being beholden to OPEC and Russia for their energy needs, they can instead rely on their friends, the United States of America. Creating jobs, keeping energy affordable, boosting energy production, and improving our energy security--that is what this bill does. I would urge my colleagues to support the Barton bill in a vote later on this morning.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I really thank Chairman Emeritus Barton for doing a really significant, good job on getting this bill bipartisan support and working so hard over the last 18 months or so, and both in the last Congress and this Congress, to get this bill ready for the floor today. Mr. Chairman, much has changed since the ban on crude oil was put in place in 1975. At that time, Congress and President Ford were responding to the Arab oil embargo crisis in an effort to protect this country from the unwanted impacts of the unstable global crude oil market. But we got good news today. Times have changed, and one of the biggest threats to the American energy boom today is not an international actor but, rather, our own ban on oil exports. Lifting the crude oil export ban is a win for our economy, yes, it is. Study after study has shown that lifting the ban would actually lower prices at the pump, create thousands of jobs, generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefits, and strengthen our geopolitical influence across the globe. It will actually also reduce the deficit by more than $1 billion with additional oil royalties. These are real benefits that will be felt not only in southwest Michigan, my district, but across the country; yet, somehow, this administration does not support this thoughtful solution. Let's look at the benefits. According to the nonpartisan GAO, lifting the ban could lower prices by 1.5 to 13 cents a gallon, real savings that add up for every family's budget. Some estimates suggest that it could support the creation of an average of 394,000 jobs. Additionally, the bill before us would boost royalty payments, as I indicated, from Federal oil and gas leases. Collectively, all of these gains provide the making of a success story that would greatly benefit our economy at a time of great uncertainty. This administration often likes to say that they are for an all-of- the-above energy policy, but the rhetoric, indeed, falls well short of reality. It doesn't make much sense that the White House is gung ho to lift the export ban in Iran, but when it comes to this country, the answer is ``no.''

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to again voice my strong support for H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act. We have been down this road before, and it has been bipartisan every step of the way. Versions of this legislation already passed the House on a number of occasions, and I believe that each Congress our thoughtful solution got better as we work to protect jobs, public health, and the environment. We worked closely with states as well as the administration, and we have a balanced solution before us today. This legislation incorporates the EPA's final coal ash rule that was announced in December and eliminates the challenges to its implementation. It sets up a state-based regulatory program to ensure the safe management and disposal of coal ash. States like my home state of Michigan have been, and will always be, better suited to implement rules and regulations because they understand local conditions. Folks who are on the ground are always better able to assess and handle a situation than bureaucrats in Washington. We have received letters in support of this bipartisan bill from state legislators, governors, and laborers--the list goes on. The Western Governors Association wrote that they ``support congressional efforts to address problematic confusion'' created by EPA's final coal ash rule. They point out that the rule produces an unintended consequence by creating a dual federal and state regulatory system. Why? Because EPA lacks authority to delegate the coal ash program to states in lieu of a federal program. Their letter also notes that EPA's rule ``does not require facilities to obtain permits, does not require states to adopt and implement new rules, and cannot be enforced by EPA.'' This bill is not about the fracas over burning coal. It's about who's on the Clean-up Committee. It's about who has the expertise and responsibility for protecting a state's natural resources and the health of a state's residents. And it's not just Western Governors who understand this principle. The Environmental Council of the States, the nonpartisan association of state and territorial environmental agency leaders, has lent their strong voices to this effort, unanimously writing is support of H.R. 1734. This isn't just environmental chiefs from states with coal, or states with governors from the same party. It's all ECOS member states. We have a thoughtful solution before us today, and I want to recognize the bill's author, Mr. McKinley, and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Shimkus, for their hard work. We have been at this for years and have struck the sweet spot. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on final passage and to vote with the gentlemen from Illinois on any amendments. I yield back.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I appreciate this amendment. It is a good amendment, and it builds on what a member of our committee, Bobby Rush, did in the full committee markup. It directs the Secretary of HHS to perform outreach to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to Hispanic-serving institutions, Native American colleges, and rural colleges to ensure health professionals from unrepresented areas are, in fact, aware of research opportunities under this act. It is a real complement to what was done before. Mr. Rush, as I remember, grabbed me on the House floor literally during our markup process and was very supportive of a number of amendments through the night. In fact, we worked on those amendments and included them in the manager's amendment. I offered them the very next morning, and they were accepted on a voice vote. This is clearly a bipartisan amendment. It is essential that we include everyone as we find cures for all. Ms. Jackson Lee and I have worked together on a number of health- related issues over the years, on date rape drugs and other issues that really strike to the heart. So I appreciate her value in adding this amendment, and I very strongly support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I support the amendment.

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

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, could I ask how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I do rise in opposition to the Lee amendment. The Lee amendment would strip dozens of important limitations and restrictions that routinely apply to funding appropriated by Congress with bipartisan support and through the normal appropriation process. For example, this amendment would strike limitations that, as has been noted, would prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to destroy life. And, frankly, they have been in place since the seventies, going back to the Henry Hyde days in the House. The Lee amendment would also strike other commonsense protections that normally apply to appropriated funds. This includes restrictions that prevent Federal grants from being awarded to tax cheats. The Lee amendment would be a vote, should it pass, to allow abuse of taxpayer funds. So I would urge the House to reject this amendment. We carefully wrote provisions that the riders that are in place would apply to each of the years of the NIH funds. And I think that that is appropriate, that the Lee amendment would undermine that. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, although I am not in opposition to the amendment, I claim the time.

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

Mr. UPTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. I would just like to say as chairman of the committee that I look forward to working with the gentleman on the language. I think this is an important amendment. I am going to speak in favor of it on Mr. Young's time in a moment. But I just want to pledge that we will work with you on language that certainly we can all accept, knowing that the goal is a very good one.

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

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I do rise in support of this important amendment that, with Mr. Young and Dr. Harris, would authorize the NIH to conduct a prize program. The intent of the amendment is, in fact, to incentivize health innovation by offering competitors the chance to win a prize for developing breakthroughs. We ought to be encouraging that. Importantly, individuals who win the prize competition would keep all of the intellectual property rights. I think that is very important. So I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I look forward to working with both sides of the aisle to make sure that we can, in fact, perfect it as we get to the end of the cycle and, ultimately, to the President's desk.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, let me just say to the gentleman from California, it is paid for. CBO has certified that all of it is paid for. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), a member of the committee.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute. Madam Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment because making this funding discretionary and subject to later appropriations is critically shortsighted for two reasons. We thought that this might be a placebo amendment, but yes, it really is a poison pill that would undermine the victories the Republicans secured in 21st Century Cures, including transformative regulatory reforms at FDA and permanent entitlement savings in both Medicare and Medicaid. Second, supporting the amendment means voting against the critical balance that we found to pay for these investments using mandatory savings in a way that reduces the deficit in working with the Appropriations Committee. According to the CBO, this bill will reduce the deficit by some $500- plus million over the first 10 years, and we conservatively estimate that it cuts $7 billion in the second decade. Third, more than 100 organizations have joined together to oppose this amendment. They represent a cross-section of organizations, including patient groups, universities, veterans, innovators, and medical providers. I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Brat amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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