Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to another gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson), who again had a very positive impact on the legislation that was bipartisan as a part of this bill.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

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

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

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

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins), a member of the committee.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris), a member of the Appropriations Committee and a very valuable member as we put this package together.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we launched this bipartisan effort about a year and a half ago, and with tomorrow's House vote, we mark a very important milestone in our quest for 21st century cures, one step closer to the finish line. There have been so many individuals throughout our 18-month journey who have helped us get to where we are today: patients across the country, advocates, researchers, innovators, experts, academics, regulators, some of the Nation's brightest minds, even Nobel Prize winners. To all, we say thank you. Thank you, too, to the hard-working staff, again, on both sides of the aisle, who took the meetings, who did the research, who drafted the language, and who sat at the negotiating table for countless hours to help us develop this incredible product: Gary, Joan, Alexa, Clay, Paul, Josh, Robert, John, Carly, Katie, Adrianna, Graham, Sean, Noelle, Macey, Mark, Tom, Bits, Marty, Tim, Jeff, and Tiffany. And to the Democratic staff, the staff of our Members, thank you all. Thanks to the House legislative counsel and the CBO for your efforts and dedication in working through many, many weekends. Thank you to the Members of both parties, who really did bring their best ideas, who partnered with one another to make their cases, and who delivered so many of the policies that we welcome today because we listened. I also want to thank Chairman Hal Rogers and his staff. The Appropriations Committee has been a critical partner in this effort for the last number of months, working with us and developing the right approach to achieve our shared goal of helping patients in a fiscally responsible way. I especially want to highlight my partner, Diana DeGette, in her effort from day one. She came to my district in Michigan, and I have traveled to Colorado. We have been on a number of road trips for Cures across the country, and I look forward to the next journey down Pennsylvania Avenue. I also want to thank Chairman Pitts, Mr. Pallone, and Mr. Green for their really strong partnership. We have made great strides, but our work continues, and we are not going to stop until the ink is dry. I thank Chairman Pete Sessions, Dr. Burgess, and members of the Rules Committee for making sure that this legislation has gotten to the floor in a timely fashion. I also want to give a hearty thanks to a young boy named Max, the 6- year-old ambassador for Cures. Yes, although he is faced with the challenges of Noonan syndrome, he has been a little warrior in that effort. He joined us when we had a 51-0 vote back on May 21 in the committee, and I am delighted that Max will be by our side tomorrow on the House floor for its final passage. Helping Max and others like him is why we are here, and helping my friends Brooke and Brielle, which will be part of my general debate discussion, is why we are here. With a resounding vote tomorrow, we will send a signal to the Senate loud and clear that the time for Cures 2015 is now. I look forward to working with my Senate counterparts on both sides of the aisle to continue the momentum of getting this bill to the President's desk. We have a chance to do something big, and this is our time.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chair, today we fight to keep electricity affordable with the Ratepayer Protection Act, a bill that protects folks all across the country from the potential rate increases and reliability risks that experts predict will occur under the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan. I applaud my colleague Ed Whitfield for his efforts on this important bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. In my home state of Michigan, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity estimates that the EPA's proposed plan would increase electricity prices by 12%. The last thing families in Michigan and across the country can afford right now are higher bills just as they are finally feeling as if they have turned the corner following the extended economic downturn. Legal experts, including President Obama's own law professor, Laurence Tribe have testified that the proposal raises grave constitutional questions, exceeds EPA's statutory authority, and violates the Clean Air Act. In fact, Professor Tribe equated the administration's action to ``burning the Constitution.'' Low-income households and those on fixed incomes get hit the hardest when electric bills go up. In Michigan, there are nearly 2 million lower-income and middle-income families--representing 52% of the state's households. Unfortunately, the costs of this proposed rule would fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable. Small businesses would also face increased electricity costs that could harm their bottom line. And every extra dollar that goes toward higher energy cost is money that can't be spent on new hiring. For manufacturers, affordable energy is imperative to stay competitive in a global market. That is why the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and many other representatives of job-creating businesses have sounded the alarm on the serious threat posed by the administration's plan. I would also note that higher costs are not the only menace looming on the horizon--what's worse than expensive electricity is no electricity at all. But that is a real possibility. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation and others have warned that the EPA's proposed plan poses a serious threat to electric reliability as power sources are forced offline. The Ratepayer Protection Act is a thoughtful and straightforward answer to the potential rate shocks and blackouts. The legislation would allow for the completion of judicial review of any rule before requiring states to implement it, and if a governor of a state finds that the rule poses a significant threat to electricity affordability and reliability they would have the power to suspend compliance with the administration's plan. The Ratepayer Protection Act does not repeal the Clean Power Plan, it merely adds several reasonable safeguards to it. Regulatory overreach has defined this administration and it is time we all stood up to protect affordable energy. Vote yes in support of every American ratepayer and lower bills.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, right now as we speak, the international community is meeting in Argentina to discuss the state of the Internet around the globe. We have an opportunity today to send a loud and clear message to those gathered in Buenos Aires: that the United States will not stand for anything other than strong safeguards to protect our online future. By advancing the DOTCOM Act, we can ensure that the Internet--the world's greatest platform of ideas, commerce, and social connection-- continues to thrive to the benefit of folks in Michigan and every corner of the country. As we move toward transitioning the United States' oversight role of the Domain Name System to the international community of stakeholders, it is essential we tread carefully and thoughtfully. The bill we are considering today is a bipartisan effort to ensure appropriate congressional oversight of this incredibly important transition, and ensure that the administration and NTIA get it right as there are no do-overs. Over the course of the past year, the Energy and Commerce Committee has engaged in efforts to ensure that any transition proposal considered by the administration contains the necessary safeguards to protect the Internet. This bill incorporates the criteria initially put forward by NTIA, and requires the agency to certify to Congress that the proposal meets these important metrics. It would also put important accountability measures in place for the Internet community. This legislation, which the Energy and Commerce Committee approved by voice vote, is the result of many informative hearings, feedback from a variety of stakeholders--both domestically and internationally--and productive and ongoing conversations between members on both sides of the aisle. Once again, our committee's efforts demonstrate that Congress can work together to achieve meaningful results and build a bipartisan record of success. I want to recognize Mr. Shimkus for his leadership on this issue from the beginning, as well as Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone for their hard work on this commonsense solution to protect the Internet on which we have come to depend. The world is watching. A vote for the DOTCOM Act is a vote for effective Congressional oversight. I urge all members to support this important legislation.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this is a long time coming. The breakthrough bipartisan bill before us today is the culmination of a multi-year, multi-Congress effort to modernize our decades-old chemical safety laws. The Toxic Substances Control Act, which was signed into law by Michigan's own President Jerry Ford, needs to be updated for the 21st century. And this thoughtful bill improves chemical safety while encouraging continued innovation and economic growth and gives the public greater confidence in the safety of American-made chemicals and the products that contain them. There are six core elements that form the basis of the TSCA Modernization Act. First, this bill helps markets work and provides certainty. Chemicals will get reviewed and will be ruled either safe for intended uses, or in need of a risk management rule. Once a decision is made by EPA, that decision will apply in all the states. Manufacturers won't have to produce 50 different product versions for 50 different states. Second, the bill respects the role of states and individual rights of action. Tort and contract claims are explicitly protected in the pre- emption section. Third, any regulation of a chemical will be guided by common sense. Is the regulation cost effective? If use in an article were restricted, will exposure actually go down? Is there a feasible replacement? Is the transition period fair? Without good answers to these questions regulation will not move forward. Fourth, the bill will build confidence for consumers and the general public that chemicals on the market anywhere in the U.S. are safe, and not just because EPA says so. EPA must evaluate risk against the most stringent science standards we've ever enacted for chemicals. And the science has to be transparent and hold up to objective peer review. Fifth, the bill lets government and industry actually collaborate. Chemical manufacturers are given the choice to ask for and get a chemical evaluated. And EPA must meet strict action deadlines. If the science indicates the chemical is safe, then EPA must say so, and that determination will be the law in all 50 states. Finally, the bill encourages innovation, largely by protecting confidential business information. New technology is not likely to appear if the secret formula can be stolen and copied the minute a new product appears. This bill would prevent that from happening. Each of the elements of the bill are not trade-offs, each provision works to the support the others. It would not accomplish much good for EPA to evaluate all these chemicals if the results were not going to apply in all the states. It does not make sense for the government to be writing safety regulations if the result is no real improvement in safety. And a manufacturer is not likely to cooperate with the government in chemical evaluation if to do so means giving up a trade secret. The TSCA Modernization Act solves each of these concerns, as all these safeguards work together. Mr. Speaker, this is a big day. The TSCA Modernization Act is good for consumers, good for trade, and good for the environment. I especially commend Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Tonko, and Mr. Latta for their dedication and hard work in putting together a bill that can be signed into law. Let's put jobs and the economy first and vote yes.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to retiring St. Joseph County Clerk Pattie Bender. Pattie is a staple of our Southwest Michigan community and my dear friend. I rise to thank her for 45 years of distinguished public service. A life-long resident of Southwest Michigan, Pattie currently serves in a dual capacity as county clerk and register of deeds. She began her career with St. Joseph County in 1970 and has served as county clerk since 1991. The office of town or county clerk is one of the oldest known offices in local government, essential to the functioning of our democracy. It is an office of trust that demands the utmost integrity and diligence. As clerk, Pattie is entrusted with the supervision of all national, state, and local elections; administers the Michigan Campaign Finance Reporting Act; and maintains all government records for the county. Having known Pattie for many years, I can attest to the fact that no one is better suited for such a position. Throughout the years, she has faithfully served the people of St. Joseph County, fairly and competently executing her duties. Personally, I have come to rely on her extensive institutional knowledge and good judgment. There is no doubt that the citizens of St. Joseph County, having reelected her to the office of county clerk six times, share my good opinion. In January, Pattie announced that she will retire in June of this year, planning to travel and spend time with her family. As she embarks on the next chapter of her life, I would like to congratulate her on a well-deserved retirement and thank her for her many years of public service to the citizens of St. Joseph County. It has been an honor to work with Pattie and to count her as a true friend. She will be greatly missed in her capacity as county clerk, but I am confident she will continue to serve as a source of wisdom in Southwest Michigan for years to come.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the nationally renowned Air Zoo in Kalamazoo, Michigan, which is hosting the 2015 Science Innovation Hall of Fame Awards on April 18, 2015. It is only fitting that the Air Zoo is the setting for this gala event to recognize the transformative work of top Southwest Michigan students and teachers in the fields of science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics as well as residents who have advanced the area of aviation. The Air Zoo was founded in 1977 as the Kalamazoo Aviation History Museum by Suzanne and Pete Parish, who wanted to share their enthusiasm for World War II airplanes and artifacts. Scientific affiliations grew to include the Smithsonian Institution and the Michigan Space Science Center, which allows visitors to experience some of the challenges astronauts face during their training. Full-motion flight simulators, 3-D and 4-D theaters, and interactive exhibits--including one about women in aviation and space--provided adventure little seen in regular museums. Education is tucked inside a fun setting as evidenced by the Air Zoo being named as the ``Best Place to Spend a Day with Your Family'' and ``Best Place to Take out-of-Towners'' for the past three years by the more than 130,000 visitors it has touching down at its doors each year. Mr. Speaker, many have wondered how the facility got its name. As the collection of airplanes grew, so did the number of animal names: Wildcat, Hellcat, Bearcat and Flying Tiger. Obviously, these flying critters can only be contained in an Air Zoo. Recently the Air Zoo was recognized as one of the jewels in the crown of the state by receiving a grant from the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs to keep this state-of-the-art air and space museum on its mission of preserving the legacy of flight. I am proud to recognize the many accomplishments of the Air Zoo by the people who work there and wish them much success in the future.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, it is wholly fitting that I rise today, Earth Day, to call attention to a report that attests to all of the wonderful strides our nation's largest companies are taking in the interest of sustainability--strides taken not in response to government mandates, but because they are good for customers, good for employees, good for the bottom line, and good for the communities in which these companies do business. Mr. Speaker, for several years Business Roundtable, a fine organization that represents CEOs of more than 200 of the country's largest companies, has released a comprehensive Sustainability Report in conjunction with Earth Day. The companies participating in the report--most of the Roundtable's members--submit considerable information about the many ways in which they are striving to take sustainability to an even higher level. Some companies have focused on drastically reducing the energy they use or increasing their use of renewable energy. Others have cut their waste production while increasing their commitment to reuse and recycle in ever more innovative ways. Still others have built sustainability into their products and workforce policies. Many have made progress on several fronts at once. The 2015 edition of the Business Roundtable's Sustainability Report, ``Create, Grow, Sustain: Leading by Example,'' is hot off the presses, and it is a pleasure for me to introduce it into the Record today. What is most notable--and impressive--to me is that the CEOs themselves contributed to this report through signed letters. These leaders personally attest to the steps taken by their companies and are justifiably proud of them. What a perfect way to mark this Earth Day. Beyond that, what is most striking about the long list of accomplishments in the area of sustainability by our nation's largest firms is that for the most part, their actions have been taken not because they were forced to by regulations and legislation but because they were good for the bottom line. We see this happening more and more. Companies are using their ingenuity to reduce their impact on the environment, not because they are threatened with government action, but because they consider solid corporate citizenship, including lessening their environmental footprint, to be a major company value. Mr. Speaker, I hope our colleagues will take the time to review ``Create, Grow, Sustain: Leading by Example'' so that we all can share with our constituent companies the many lessons that Business Roundtable companies have to offer.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, it couldn't be bipartisan if we didn't have good people on both sides of the aisle to get things done. I appreciate all the leadership on this side and this side to really get this to a finish point today. Today, we do come together, we really do--Republicans and Democrats-- to finally, finally fix Medicare's broken payment system, protect seniors' access to care, and, yes, strengthen Medicare and extend the Children's Health Insurance Program. For way too long, the so-called SGR has been an axe over Medicare physicians and the seniors that they care for. It has sparked crisis after crisis for nearly 20 years, forcing this Congress to pass some 17 temporary measures to undo its faulty math and protect seniors' access to their trusted doctors. Those 17 patches also served as a ready-made vehicle for bigger government. Today, we put a stop to that gravy train, leave the SGR in the past, and begin to put Medicare on the right track. This bill is good for seniors and for doctors who treat them. We repeal the flawed SGR formula and replace it with a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a new system that promotes innovation and higher quality care. It removes the hassle and worry that so many seniors and physicians face from the cycle of repeated patches. We also take steps to strengthen Medicare for current and future seniors with structural reforms, which will not only provide cost savings today, but the CBO has confirmed those savings will grow over time. And the budget that we passed last night fully accounts for the cost of those permanent reforms. This package also extends benefits for millions of low-income families and children by extending the Children's Health Insurance Program for 2 years. This program provides high-quality, affordable coverage for roughly 8 million children and pregnant women and has been an example of sound bipartisan success. I want to thank the bill's sponsor, Dr. Burgess, for his leadership on this issue from day one. He came to Congress to solve this problem and, today, we have a bill with his name on it to do just that. I also commend the great subcommittee chair, Joe Pitts. Four years ago, we embarked together on this effort to end the SGR, and that hard work has brought us to this point. I want to thank the full committee and the Health Subcommittee ranking members, Mr. Pallone, my good friend, and Mr. Green, for working, again, across the aisle from day one. We wouldn't be standing here together if we hadn't started together. Also, a big thanks to the folks at the House Legislative Counsel, CBO, and the committee staff: Clay Alspach, Robert Horne, Josh Trent, Paul Edattel, and Noelle Clemente. Finally, I want to thank my friends on the Ways and Means Committee and our leadership on both sides, from John Boehner and Kevin McCarthy to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer. We are, together, getting this done. This is a long time coming. Most of us came to Congress to fight for our Nation's kids, seniors, and their families. Today's vote is a defining moment for this Congress and for Medicare. Those who vote ``no'' are not only voting against seniors but against the future of the critical safety net. That is why we all need to vote ``yes.''

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that we have any further speakers. I am willing to close, if the gentleman goes first.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Here we are, once again, to debate legislation on the Keystone XL pipeline. For the past 6 years, this project has been thoroughly vetted by the Congress and the administration. There is no question in my mind that the Keystone XL is in the national interest, so let's look again at the facts: It is a jobs project. The President's own State Department has confirmed that Keystone is going to support 42,000 jobs across the country; Keystone is going to be safe. Yes, it is. Pipelines remain one of the very safest and most efficient ways to transport energy, and Keystone is going to rank at the top of the class when it comes to safety. The pipeline, in fact, is going to incorporate some 59 additional safety standards proposed by PHMSA, and it will adhere to the rigorous new pipeline safety standards on which I worked with John Dingell to get signed into law in the last Congress; Keystone is better for the environment. Yes, it is. We know that Canada is going to continue to develop its rich oil sands regardless of whether we build the pipeline. If we don't build it, that oil is going to continue to get to the marketplace through other, more carbon- intensive means; Keystone is going to enhance our energy security and help energy prices stay stable and affordable. We know this respite from high gas prices won't last forever, and prices have already begun to tick back up. By bringing more North American energy to the market, the pipeline can help protect us against future price spikes and overseas disruptions. We want as much certainty in the marketplace as we can. The President said last week that, again, another reason he is against this is that gas prices are low. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal headline above the fold reads: ``Oil-Price Rebound Predicted.'' That is right. They are going to go up. Americans understand supply and demand. The Keystone pipeline is very positive for us in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter that we received just an hour or so ago from the Canadian Embassy. Canadian Embassy, February 10, 2015. Dear Mr. Secretary, I was quite disappointed to read the comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to the Keystone XL (KXL) application. The EPA derives its greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) calculations from a study using data from 2005, two years before iPhones existed, completely neglecting the innovation and emissions reductions that have since occurred in the oil sands. Just as communication technology has advanced in the last ten years, so too has scientific analysis of the oil sands. There are more recent credible scientific numbers on oil sands emissions reductions. Canadian government data show that per barrel emissions have fallen 28% from 1990 to 2012. In 2014, both IHS-CERA (Dan Yergin's consultancy) and the California Air Resources Board data showed that average oil sands GHG emissions are in the same range as Venezuelan and Californian heavy oil and lower than several types of Venezuelan and Californian crudes. Furthermore, IHS-CERA has determined that 45% of the crude oils consumed in the United States are within the same GHG intensity range as those of the oil sands. The EPA selected the highest GHG value among four studies considered by the State Department, and then assumed that KXL flows at capacity over fifty years, that KXL transports only oil sands crude, and most egregiously that the only crude displaced is Saudi light. By contrast, the State Department reported oil sands incremental emissions as a range from 1.3 to 27.4 megatonnes annually. The lower figure compared oil sands to Venezuelan and Mexican heavy crudes that would be displaced. The higher figure compared oil sands to Saudi light crude, an international benchmark, which your Department noted, is not a direct competitor for heavy crude oil refineries. Clearly, the correct comparison is to the lower figure, not the higher figure. In its April 22nd, 2013 comments on the same data, the EPA calculated an oil sands incremental GHG value some 46% lower than it is now claiming, and made no effort to explain why its calculation has now increased by 46%. The EPA chose to ignore that the oil sands are produced in the only jurisdiction supplying oil to the United States that has imposed a carbon fee which is used to fund clean energy technologies. The EPA questions the State Department's finding that, absent KXL, incremental volumes of Canadian oil will move to the U.S. Gulf Coast by rail. The EPA chose rather conveniently not to examine data for the last two years. Since the KXL application was first delayed in November 2011, crude oil by rail exports from Canada to the U.S. have jumped ten-fold, and continue to expand. The EPA neither discusses nor disputes the State Department's findings that rail represents 28-42% higher GHG emissions than KXL. The EPA neither discusses nor disputes the State Department's findings on safety. The State Department originally reported that KXL would represent one injury and no fatalities annually, as compared to 49 injuries and six fatalities for rail, then revised the rail figures from 49 to 189 injuries, and from six to 28 fatalities. The EPA chose to ignore that Canada, an ally, has committed to an absolute reduction in our GHG emissions. No other major oil supplier to the United States can make this statement. In 2012, Canada's GHG emissions were down 5.1%, with more work ahead of us. One is left with the conclusion that there has been significant distortion and omission to arrive at the EPA's conclusions. There is no significant difference between the GHG emissions from oil sands crude oil and from other heavy crude oils that would be displaced at the U.S. Gulf Coast. As compared to rail. KXL represents lower GHG emissions, as well as lower environmental and public safety risks. We would be pleased to discuss the gap between the EPA comments and the scientific analysis of the State Department. Thank you for the opportunity to raise this issue with you. Sincerely, Gary Doer, Ambassador.

Mr. UPTON. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentlelady's interest on this, and I share her concern. I would note, and I know that I would also speak for my colleague, Chairman Shuster, as we did write then-chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp, back in 2012, May 21, I sent a letter to the Ways and Means chair encouraging that this exemption be--loophole--be fixed. As you know, meaningful tax reform did not emerge from the last Congress. I remain absolutely committed to resolving this, as I know Bill Shuster has said so on the Record. Besides that though, it has been years that we have been debating this, and we finally have a bill out of the Senate. They took a whole month on the other side. They considered lots of amendments. They adopted three. We are accepting those three amendments when this bill passes today, as we did not go to conference. As we know, this is a jurisdictional issue, that neither our committee nor Transportation has jurisdiction over tax issues. That is why we were not able to include that provision here, and that is, frankly, why the Senate was not able to adopt it on the Senate side either, because it would have been a blue slip issue. We view this on our side as a procedural issue. We don't want to send it back to the Senate. Who knows when we are going to get it back after the last month that they had. I would urge my colleagues on our side to vote ``no'' on this procedural vote. To the folks on your side that are voting, just know that we remain committed to closing this loophole. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the gentlewoman's motion.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I might just start off by asking my dear friend from California a quick question: If this motion was adopted, would she be voting for the bill? Yes or no. I yield to the gentlewoman.