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 on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 1633.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Whirlpool Corporation on the tremendous occasion of its 100th anniversary. Headquartered in Benton Harbor, Michigan, Whirlpool is the global leader in the home appliance industry: delivering products of unmatched quality to customers in virtually every corner of the world. Since its founding in 1911, Whirlpool has continued to build upon its well-earned reputation as a socially and environmentally conscious company by improving the quality of life in countless communities, fostering strong private-public partnerships, and setting the industry standard for energy efficiency and conservation. Much has changed for the company in the past 100 years, but through it all Whirlpool has remained true to its Midwest, hometown roots. Michigan has faced more than its fair share of challenges through the recent economic downturn, but companies like Whirlpool are helping lead the way for our State's recovery and to restore our Nation's economic competitiveness. The company is currently undertaking the multimillion-dollar construction of a state-of-the-art headquarters office campus in Benton Harbor. Whirlpool has also played an integral role in the half-billion- dollar Harbor Shores development project, which is revitalizing the St. Joseph-Benton Harbor area. Thank you to Whirlpool for a century of creating jobs and giving back--here's to the next 100 years.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. On this bill there are two camps in this body: There are Members who want to stop using coal for energy production as soon as possible and switch to other alternative energy forms; and then there is the group that recognizes that coal supplies half of our Nation's electricity and that, whether we like it or not, it will continue to do so for a fairly long time, so we need to manage as best we can the residuals left over after that coal is burned. It's amazing what clever uses we have found for the coal ash that our power plants produce. Yes, it's used to strengthen concrete. In fact, the road builders report that road and bridge building costs will increase by $100 billion over the next 20 years if we stop using coal ash in concrete. In fact, the standard, believe it or not, for the California highway authority is concrete strengthened with coal ash. The best wallboard, roofing shingles, even bowling balls contain coal ash. But not all coal ash is beneficially used. That's why we need to make sure that what is disposed of will stay managed responsibly. Today States have a variety of standards for managing disposal of coal ash. The gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) on our committee told us that her State finds uses for all of its coal ash. Other States have to deal with disposing of half or more of their coal ash. Mr. McKinley, the sponsor of this legislation, when he first joined our committee, he explained to us how the administration's proposals to regulate coal combustion residuals as though they are hazardous, were threatening the recycling industry. He asked us to support the bill to simply set those proposals aside. We held a hearing on the bill and we heard from a variety of witnesses--from recyclers, from power plant operators, environmental groups, and others. But among the most important witnesses was a lady who spoke for the officials in every one of our 50 States who run the State solid waste management programs. She had a better idea. Explaining that States govern solid waste under stringent Federal guidelines, she asked: Why not do the same with coal ash? We States, she said, all run our solid waste programs just fine and are careful to meet the Federal standards for two reasons: First, we want to protect human health and the environment; and, second, we don't want the EPA running our programs for us. So we rolled up our sleeves and drafted such a program--bipartisan, by the way. We started with the Federal municipal solid waste rules themselves and saw that most of those would apply very well to coal ash. Even the EPA said municipal solid waste laws are a good model for safe management of coal ash. After all, these laws protect us from everyday household trash that includes battery acid, mercury, paints, electronic parts, and who knows what else. But then we looked again and saw that there are different issues with coal ash, so we added some provisions to take those differences into account and make this bill even more protective. The result was the bill before us today that is endorsed by one of the broadest, most interesting coalitions that we've seen. The Environmental Council of the States, the 50 heads of the State environmental departments from Maine to California, strongly endorses the bill. So do the recyclers. And every Member, I'll bet, has heard from at least one of them. So do the power plant operators, the coal producers, the manufacturers, the cement industry, the private sector labor unions, and, yes, certainly the folks who pay their electricity bill. So who's left out? Well, the opponents have really just one thing in common. They regret that coal is a big energy source, and they think that the sooner we can get off it, the better. They understand that to get there, you've got to stop the recycling first and then start regulating it as though it's hazardous. It's not. Even Carol Browner said it's not. She said that in 1993, and she said that again in 2000. This bill is a new approach. It's Congress setting the standards and the States making sure that they are met, as the States know best how to do. I ask you to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote ``yes'' on final passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, thanks to my good friend and Michigan colleague Dave Camp for his leadership on this issue. I come from the State of Michigan, where there is no single issue of greater importance than jobs and the economy. The fact is hundreds of thousands of American jobs rely on exports, and promoting a robust trade agenda will only help bolster our economy and create more jobs. 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside of the United States, so opening up their markets for our manufactured and agricultural goods is a matter of common sense. In 2010, U.S. exports totaled more than $1.8 trillion, or 12.5 percent of GDP. Michigan ranks 8th in the nation for the number of export-dependent jobs. In 2008, nearly 12,000 companies exported goods from locations within our state. And last year, Michigan export shipments totaled some $44.5 billion. The three pending free trade agreements are expected to increase Michigan agriculture exports by $45 million per year--the agreement with South Korea alone will increase Michigan pork exports by $4.5 million annually. The medical device industry also stands to benefit greatly from these agreements. Demand for medical devices in South Korea is expected to grow by 10 percent each year, and the new duty-free status given to devices will give companies like Stryker, headquartered in my district, unprecedented access to that market. In fact, it is my understanding that medical device sales may increase as much as $1 billion. This legislation finally allows us, the United States, to reverse course and export products rather than jobs. Isn't that a good thing? Of course it is! By removing barriers to U.S. exports, American job creators will have significant new market access: that' good news for business, jobs, and Southwest Michigan; and the entire country.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cliff Moshoginis of Kalamazoo, Michigan, who was named Airport Manager of the Year by the Michigan Association of Airport Executives on Thursday, September 15, 2011. Mr. Moshoginis began his career at the Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport in 1993. In 1999, he rose to assistant director of the airport, and in 2006 became its director. Mr. Moshoginis was chosen as the recipient of this impressive honor by the president of the association and other members of the board. He himself previously served as president of the association and currently acts as its legislative committee chair. Despite enormous challenges that have directly affected the air transportation industry in recent years, Mr. Moshoginis has displayed great innovation in keeping our airports safe and efficient. It is because of his vision and direction that the Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport has prospered, seeing an 11 percent increase in employment and approval of several new construction projects. I was pleased that the Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport recently received vital funding for ongoing construction of a new terminal. This expansion has been good for economic growth in our district and made the airport a more efficient gateway to southwest Michigan. The honor bestowed upon Mr. Moshoginis is an achievement that makes us all very proud to have such a remarkable person serving the people of our district. Congratulations to Mr. Moshoginis and his employees for being recognized with this well-deserved achievement.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I appreciate the minute. My constituents are saying get the job done. Vote for the rule and vote for the bill. The President said about a year ago, I want to say it was the State of the Union Address, the debt today is unsustainable. He's right. And for the first time, we are coupling an increase in the debt ceiling with real reductions in spending. No, this is not reducing the rate of growth in spending. This is actually reducing spending. In fact, at the end of the day, when we look at fiscal year 2012 versus fiscal year 2011, we are going to be spending less money in 2012 than we did in the 2011. Nobody--nobody--is coming to our offices and saying cut our spending. But, in fact, the American public is saying, Federal Government, cut your spending. That's what this bill will do. It's going to reduce spending. Yes, it's going to increase the ceiling on the debt, but it's coupled with real reforms that I think the American public want, and that's why it's going to have some bipartisan support when we deal with this issue a little bit later on this afternoon. So I commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle. Let's get the job done. Let's get it over with so we can get to the business of running the rest of the government and the country.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I submit the following exchange of letters. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, July 8, 2011. Hon. Doc Hastings, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hastings: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 1938, the North American-Made Energy Security Act. The Committee on Energy and Commerce recognizes that the Committee on Natural Resources has jurisdiction over H.R. 1938, and I appreciate your effort to waive the Committee's right to take action on it. I concur with you that foregoing action on H.R. 1938 does not in any way prejudice the Committee on Natural Resources with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation in the future, and I would support your effort to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving this or related legislation. I appreciate your cooperation regarding this legislation and I will include our letters on H.R. 1938 in the Congressional Record during House floor consideration of the bill. Sincerely, Fred Upton, Chairman.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Today, national unemployment rests at 9.2 percent, but it's even higher in my State of Michigan at 10.5 percent. Gasoline costs $3.80 a gallon or more in many areas, up a dollar from last year. Political unrest halfway around the world disrupts the flow of oil to markets, causing prices to rise. Most leaders in this situation would be searching for a project that would create jobs, help bring down gas prices and, yes, provide a stable and secure source of oil to replace imports from dangerous parts of the world. Our President is being handed such a project on a silver platter, and he's dangerously close to letting it slip through his fingers. Our northern ally, Canada, has discovered an oil resource comparable to the size of Saudi Arabia, and they want to send the oil here to the United States. Five major labor unions have thrown their support behind the pipeline because it's going to create more than 100,000 jobs. Yet this administration has allowed the permit application to languish for nearly 3 years, even saying that they were inclined to support it almost a year ago in October. This pipeline, the Keystone XL, if approved, would dramatically improve our energy security. According to DOE, the pipeline would essentially eliminate our Middle East oil imports. It would provide for a massive influx of stable oil into the market, something desperately needed as threatened supplies in North Africa send prices into orbit. This country needs the President to make a decision on Keystone XL's permit. The uncertainty has gone on too long, and if we don't act, these energy supplies will go someplace else. That's why we have this legislation, H.R. 1938. This bipartisan bill doesn't tell the President how to decide, it just requires him to make a decision. I commend my colleagues, Representatives Terry and Ross, for finding a commonsense and, yes, bipartisan solution. If we don't build this pipeline, Canada will find another buyer. The Chinese have expressed significant interest in Alberta's oil sands. Are we going to stand by and watch China receive imports from our ally while we're forced to rely on imports from unstable countries? I sure hope not. While I believe construction of this pipeline is necessary and important, I know it has to be done safely. Last year, 20,000 barrels of oil did spill through a creek that runs through my district. I have made pipeline safety a priority in our committee, and just this week we're going to be moving forward on effective pipeline safety legislation to protect the environment and, yes, our communities. This legislation will ensure that crucial energy supplies, like the oil received from Canada, is transported safely throughout the country. We need a ``yes'' vote on this bipartisan bill.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado, Cory Gardner, the sponsor of this legislation; and the gentleman from Kentucky, Ed Whitfield, the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, for moving this legislation along. Madam Chair, the purpose of this bill is real simple. It is to streamline the permit process to allow us more domestic production of oil and gas. In this country, we consume about 19 million barrels a day of oil and we produce about 7 million, and the exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf has been delayed for years because of a broken bureaucracy. The regional EPA, they are going to approve exploration air permits, only to have them challenged again by EPA's Environmental Appeals Board. It has been a never-ending circuit of approvals, appeals and re-applications, and it has stalled exploration for nearly 5 years. So what does that mean? It means that these resources, which perhaps contain as much as 28 billion--yes, that's billion--barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, have been stalled. We know that if production is allowed here, safe production, we could produce perhaps as much as 1 million barrels a day from these sites, and it would add about 54,000 American jobs. Yet 5 years after the original lease sales, not a single test well has been drilled, not a single barrel of domestic oil has been brought to market to reduce our reliance on Middle East oil, and not a single job has been created to develop the resources because the bureaucracy is standing in the way of exploration. This legislation changes that, and I would urge my colleagues to support this sensible, bipartisan legislation to streamline the permitting process and finally allow us to explore and develop the vast resources of our Nation. This bill was approved by the Energy and Commerce Committee with a strong bipartisan vote, and I look forward to the same result today.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most Americans understand the concept of supply and demand, and in fact a third of oil now comes from the gulf. The Department of Energy's information agency tells us that last year's production in the gulf was 20 percent less than projected in 2007, and in 2012 we are going to be getting a half a million barrels a day decline in production from 2010. What happens when the production goes down and the demand goes up? The price goes up--way up. Add to that the uncertainty and the unrest in the Middle East, and there is no surprise that we have gas prices at $4 and $5 now in this country, and who knows where they are headed. This legislation, if we pass it today and get it enacted, helps turn the key to unlocking the door on domestic energy production. This legislation is not about new lease sales. It is simply catches up with the leases already approved. Let's pass it.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1213 and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this bill is part of our effort to restore fiscal accountability to the Federal Government. In the rush to pass some kind, any kind of health care reform, the 111th Congress enacted a massive law, 2,000 and some pages, that gave the Secretary of HHS unprecedented new authority. Although it got little attention at the time, one of those new powers is an unlimited tap on the Federal Treasury. Section 1311(a) of PPACA provides the Secretary of HHS a direct appropriation of such sums as necessary for grants to states to facilitate the purchase of qualified health plans in newly created exchanges. Shockingly, the Congress gave an executive branch official the sole authority to determine the size of the appropriation. Without any further Congressional action, the Secretary can literally spend hundreds of billions of dollars at the Department's discretion. The only real restriction on this unlimited appropriation is the Secretary's imagination. Given Washington's reckless fiscal habits, Americans concerned about record spending, deficits, and debt have much to fear from section 1311(a) of PPACA. This unprecedented tap on the Federal Treasury should never have been granted to one individual, and given the huge uncertainty regarding PPACA, it certainly should not be continued now. Two Federal district courts have struck down the law. State AGs have asked for an expedited review of the litigation, but this administration has refused to let it happen. As a result, the future of the law remains certainly murky. Both supporters and opponents should be able to agree that resolving the case expeditiously in the courts, the Supreme Court, is in the best interest of the country. But, in the interim, we should not be spending billions of dollars, billions of dollars of taxpayers' dollars on something that might never happen. Repealing the fund will protect precious taxpayer resources at a time of record red ink. Rampant spending on the Federal credit card is unsustainable and certainly dangerous. And the Federal Government is now going to be borrowing 42 cents of every dollar for these grants, $58,000 every second. Just think about this. We're facing a $1.6 trillion deficit, and the President's budgets will nearly double the national debt from $14 trillion to $26 trillion. This program in PPACA is a prime example of the hidden costs of the health care law. While the program itself, remember, was billed as costing taxpayers $2 billion, CBO confirmed to us last week that repealing the program will reduce the deficit by $14 billion. That's because fewer Americans will be pushed into the exchanges, and a million more Americans will retain their employer-provided health care coverage. This bill is about accountability to taxpayers and fiscal responsibility in the Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this bill that will reduce the deficit by $14 billion. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that all of my remaining time be given to Dr. Burgess to manage the bill on the floor.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Public Safety Officer Eric Zapata of Kalamazoo, Michigan, who was killed in the line of duty on the night of April 18th, 2011. Our heartfelt prayers and condolences go out to his family and loved ones. A ten-year veteran of the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety, Zapata was a tireless public servant who put the wellbeing of his community above himself. Like so many in local law enforcement, Zapata was a father, a son, a brother, and a friend--he will be greatly missed. We are all deeply indebted to those brave men and women in public safety, whose countless sacrifices allow us to go about our daily lives and take our own safety for granted. The pain of this tragic loss is felt by every member of our southwest Michigan community. PSO Zapata's ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom and security will never be forgotten. He leaves a legacy of distinguished service and selfless heroism. Officer Zapata was the first Kalamazoo Public Safety Officer killed in the line of duty. Let's all pray he will also be the last.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be permitted to file its reports to accompany H.R. 1213, H.R. 1214, H.R. 1215, and H.R. 1216 at any time through Wednesday, April 27, 2011.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I rise today to recognize and honor the Greater Kalamazoo Association of REALTORS. For 100 years, this organization and its members have proudly served the people of southwest Michigan, while setting the bar for excellence within the real estate industry. What began a century ago as a group of 29 individuals with the common purpose of promoting real estate in Kalamazoo, Michigan, the Greater Kalamazoo Association of REALTORS has grown to an organization with hundreds of members representing over 100 real estate firms. Since 1911, the Greater Kalamazoo Association of REALTORS has been a leader in real estate, all the while maintaining the same professional and ethical standards upon which it was founded. From creating the first exchange of real estate listings in the State of Michigan to helping usher new industry technologies, Kalamazoo realtors represent the best in their field. As we know, any organization or body is only as strong as the sum of its members. I would like to thank all of the members of the Greater Kalamazoo Association of REALTORS for their longstanding commitment to local economic growth as well as their work to improve housing standards and home financing, and promote private property rights and commonsense, pro-growth policies. They are truly leaders in putting Michigan back on track.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I want to thank the chair of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications for yielding this time and for his leadership on the legislation. Once again, we're here to put the brakes on runaway bureaucracy. The FCC has overstepped its authority and is attempting to seize control of one of the Nation's greatest technological success stories. If there is one segment of our economy that continues to fire on all cylinders in the current economic environment, it is the information technology sector and the Internet. The FCC's ``2010 National Broadband Plan'' reports that 95 percent of the country has access to broadband and two-thirds subscribe. The number of users has skyrocketed to 200 million from 8 million 10 years ago. That translates into real investment and real jobs. In 2009, the communication sector invested close to $90 billion. In the U.S., it directly employed approximately 1.5 million people. All the success stories that we are hearing, from Apple to Zipcar, not only have occurred in the absence of government intervention but because of the absence of government intervention. From technological advancements to creative business models, the Internet has remained a thriving, competitive, and innovative marketplace because the government has kept its hand off. Despite this economic and innovation success story, the FCC has decided to fundamentally change the technology landscape by adopting rules regulating the Internet. Like the late Democratic FCC commissioner, a good guy from Michigan, Jim Quello, said: ``If it ain't broke, don't break it.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, the Internet is not broken, and this bill will ensure that the FCC does not break it. George Will said: ``Most Americans think that the government doesn't work real well and the Internet does.'' Why in the world are we then putting the government in charge of the Internet? Some of my colleagues criticize the use of the CRA. Let me remind these critics that they themselves have cosponsored disapproval resolutions to overturn previous FCC rulemaking. Mr. Waxman, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Markey, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Dingell cosponsored H.J. Res. 72 in 2003. Mr. Waxman, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Doyle, Ms. Schakowsky, and Ms. Baldwin cosponsored H.J. Res. 79 in 2008. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid helped create the disapproval process in the CRA to give Congress a straight up-or-down vote on just this kind of regulatory overreach. That's why this statute itself provides the language of disapproval resolutions and which is why there are no amendments. President Obama has said that his priority is to focus on jobs. He's also said that his administration will avoid onerous and unnecessary regulations that stifle investment and innovation. On January 18, the President issued an executive order calling on agencies to base regulations on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs. While the executive order does not apply to independent agencies, the President urged such agencies to follow it, and FCC Chairman Genachowski said that he agrees with the executive order's principles. Yet the FCC admitted in its network neutrality order that it conducted that no market power analysis. The Internet is not broken. The market has not failed. Imposing these rules will cause more harm than good by chilling the very investment and innovation that we need to ensure that the Internet keeps pace with the growing demands being placed on it. It will only hurt our economy. Ultimately, it's a question of authority. The FCC lacks both legal and policy justifications for its action. The agency keeps changing its story about where it gets the power to issue the rules, each time teetering from one weak explanation to another based on the most recent legal or political impediment that its facing. None are consistent with its own precedent and all are an end-run around the D.C. circuit's decision in the Comcast case that the FCC has failed to show its authority in this space. So, Mr. Speaker, if we allow the FCC to seize control of the Internet, it's going to reduce innovation and investment. Fewer jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. UPTON. I would remind my colleagues, this is a procedural vote. H.R. 910 does not impact asthma. Frankly, our side would have liked to have debated this amendment. It was not offered to the Rules Committee. It was offered in committee, where it was rejected on a voice vote. If you read the endangerment finding, you will see that asthma is mentioned one time. As to asthma, EPA's endangerment finding refers only once to the term ``asthma,'' and then only in the context of wildfires and particulate matter which is already regulated. So it doesn't change that. If you care about jobs, you are going to vote ``yes'' on the bill. If you care about not increasing gas prices beyond $4, where they are in much of the country today, you will vote for the bill, which means you ought to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on final passage. The Clean Air Act regulates 188 different pollutants. H.R. 910 doesn't change one of those. So please, my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on final passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. We can accept one and one. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that the majority and the minority each have an additional 1 minute on this amendment.

Mr. UPTON. We're working against the clock a little bit; so I would prefer that we just do one and one and end it there on this amendment. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that each side have 1 additional minute on this amendment.

Mr. UPTON. We are prepared to accept the agreement.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. UPTON. I just want to say to my friend from Texas that with regard to the hue and cry of folks that support this legislation, not a lot of business folks, I have a whole series of letters of support for our legislation from the American Electric Power to the Farm Bureau, the Iron and Steel Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, American Public Power, Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce, Metalcasters Alliance, Multi-Traders Letters, auto dealers, Realtors, manufacturers, National Association of Manufacturers, cattlemen, Mining Association, petrochemical, Rural Electrical Cooperative, and on and on. Letters of Support AF&PA Press Statement American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Press Statement American Electric Power American Farm Bureau Federation American Iron and Steel Institute Americans for Prosperity Press Statement Americans for Tax Reform API-ACC Coalition Letter American Public Power Association Business Roundtable Letter Chamber of Commerce Cornwall Alliance Freedom Action Press Release Industrial Energy Consumers of America Press Statement Metalcasters Alliance Midwest Power Coalition Multi-Traders Letters

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House Ag Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).