Fred Upton

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. If the gentleman would yield, it is my understanding that they haven't been able to conclude the permits that would link those oil discoveries.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Larry Clymer, an outstanding public servant with a long and distinguished career of service in Southwest Michigan. Larry passed away unexpectedly this week and will be greatly missed by our community. As the longtime mayor of Niles he was a valued and trusted friend. Upon my election to Congress, part of Larry's legacy came to Washington with me, in the form of his son, Jeff, who served as my first Legislative Director. Though Larry was an active Republican, he was not afraid to create coalitions to put the best interests of Niles first--a lesson I learned from him and follow still today. He was indeed ``Mr. Niles'' and I always appreciated his thoughts and interests, regularly weighing in on behalf of the greater community good. I would be hard pressed to find someone with a greater dedication to Niles and Berrien County, MI. Larry faithfully served our community for a combined 28 years--14 as the mayor of Niles and 14 as a Berrien County Commissioner. Outside of his official duties, Larry earned the nickname ``marrying mayor'' after performing more than 250 marriages, and was known for his sense of humor. Larry was an exceptional public servant, and a gentleman. He has given a lifetime of service to our community, and our thoughts today are with his wife, Eleanor, and his family. We lost a treasure in Niles, and we will all miss him sorely. God bless ``Mr. Niles.''

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Well, there have been different studies showing different things in terms of what to count. One of the bills that I have cosponsored, it is actually a bipartisan bill, is to look at increasing ethanol from nonfood source, or noncorn, and there are a couple of bills to do that using switch grass and a number of different things. We are not quite there in the technology, but we are not too far away, within a couple of years. And I think we ought to be investing more on that type of technology so that we can take some of the pressure off these rising food prices. I represent Kellogg's as well, as does the gentleman in the well, Mr. Walberg.

Mr. UPTON. Yes. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. UPTON. If the gentleman would yield just briefly. The Canadians have said that they are going to increase production up in Alberta. They want to go to four to five million barrels a day. And they have the buyers. Let's face it. Wouldn't we rather have that pipeline come down to the Midwest and have us refine it here and be able to sell a cheaper product to Americans than have it come from overseas some place else? And if we're not going to buy it from them, and the Canadians told me this, they are going to build a pipeline out to the Pacific. They are going to put it on one of those big freighters. They're going to spend a lot of carbon going up into the air shipping it to someplace else, China, Korea, Japan or some place else. Let's have it come here. We'll actually save energy. We will help pollution wise in terms of reducing greenhouse gases from where it otherwise would have gone. And our consumers will be a lot better off. And with that, I yield now to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. UPTON. I am glad I didn't date myself.

Mr. UPTON. I am looking at the pages. I don't know if they know about the Clampetts or not. Do you know about the Clampetts? Have you heard?

Mr. UPTON. Well the gentleman is exactly correct. And let me just say one quick thing. When you look at oil shale and you look at tar sands, it takes a little bit of energy to then derive that oil from those bodies, the shale, the tar or the sand. Basically you have to heat it up. And for tar sands, the Canadians are producing literally one million barrels a day up in Alberta. And they are going to make that whether we are the buyer or not. To use the analogy of the Clampetts, and maybe they still have that technique back in Oklahoma and Texas, I see some of my colleagues, and I'll be careful, but the Clampetts, they put that pipe down and the oil came up. And it didn't take any energy to get it out of the ground. Well it is different today. That easy energy is gone for the most part. So we have to do a lot of things. We have to inject carbon to bring it up. But in essence in Canada they have to have the heat to separate the oil from the sand, and then you have to refine it. And that takes a little bit more energy than the Clampetts, just to use that analogy.

Mr. UPTON. Now that the price of oil has gotten up to $135 a barrel, there is a lot of things that 1 month ago weren't economical to do. And that is why by putting more alternative fuels in the mix, we can have some downward pressure on the overall price of gasoline. And obviously ethanol is part of that mix, whether it be corn-based or nonfood items, and we need to explore those and see what we can do to put downward pressure on the overall price of gasoline.

Mr. UPTON. Well, I thank my good friend from my neighboring district. And I am pleased to join you tonight and my colleagues from Georgia here and Texas now as well. I'd like to just make a couple of points. First of all, I'm not on your list of 93 that signed that discharge petition, but that's because the line was too long. I hope that I can be there tomorrow when we're on the floor for votes, because you have to do that, of course--as any student knows of this Chamber--you have to sign the discharge petition in the well of the House. And when I was available to do that, the line was way too long. So hopefully tomorrow I will put you over 100 and get closer to the 218. I want to say just a couple of things that perhaps haven't been said yet and enter into a dialogue with my good friend, Dr. Gingrey. First of all, when we talk about Alaska, I did support drilling in Alaska multiple times over the last couple of years. It was adopted, actually, in the House and in the Senate with some bipartisan votes, and sadly, President Clinton vetoed that bill 10 years ago saying it's 10 years away. Well, here we are today. We had a couple of very good provisions in that bill that were important; that all of the oil drilled in Alaska had to stay in the United States. It couldn't go to China, couldn't go to Korea or Japan, it had to come here. Of course that meant we would have to have the refining capability to do it as well. We also made it so that we limited it to no more than a couple thousand acres. And as the gentleman from Georgia indicated, that's about the size--for me, it's the size of Western Michigan University, not Dulles Airport--in an area that's the size of the State of South Carolina. So that's pretty small. And of course what we know, too, is that if that oil can be drilled successfully, we can just build that tangent a little bit to the spine--you know, those of us from Michigan, you put your hand up like this. I can't quite do that with Alaska. But if this was Alaska, you only have to drill that pipeline to the spine, and then it comes down, and it's economical to do that. So that's number one. Number two, you know, right now President Bush and other world leaders are talking to a number of the nations in Arab lands talking about what they can do to increase production. Because we all believe in supply and demand. And as the demand continues to rise, because the supply has stayed relatively stable, the price has only gone up over $4 in my district and yours, and now across the country. Well, how can we ask the Arabs to increase their production and we won't do it ourselves? We've said no to Alaska. We've said no to the offshore drilling off our west and east coasts and even parts of the Gulf of Mexico. Eighty-five percent of our coastline is off limits, and yet we know oil is there. Let's look at different alternatives. One of the alternatives, of course, is the development of oil shale out west, where it's anticipated that there could be as much as 1.5 trillion barrels; don't quite have the procedures down right, it's a couple years away, but you've got to begin that process, to begin the permit process. Much of it is on Federal land. No, I'm not talking about Yellowstone Park and our national parks, but in BLM land. And yet, on a vote that we had in this House last summer, by six votes we failed to allow the Department of the Interior to allow the first permits to be approved to allow the private sector to go out and explore for this oil shale--which we could develop, I would like to think, within a couple years, four to six, something along that line. But, in fact, a trillion and a half barrels are available. We have to do more on conservation. I was one, coming from Michigan, a tough vote was increasing CAFE. You know that. We have to have the R&D, the research and development to help our auto companies develop the technologies that we, the consumers, want. And Joe Knollenberg from our State has a great bill that does that that he unveiled just a couple weeks ago. We have to do more on conservation, and a number of different steps that I know can be taken along that front. But the bottom line is this: If we want the price to come down, we have to increase the supply. That means we have to get away from where we're drilling today. We have to look at new sites, new techniques, and in fact we can do something, I think, about that $4 plus gasoline that all of us are pained to pay. And if I could, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia to talk a little bit about an issue that I know a little something about as well, and that is Section 526 up in Canada.

Mr. UPTON. The gentleman makes a very good point. And I know there are other Members waiting patiently to speak. So I am going yield whatever time I have left to the gentleman from the great State of Michigan.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Walter Jones III--decorated Vietnam War hero, active member of the Civil Rights Movement, and dedicated servant to the community of Kalamazoo, MI. During the Vietnam War, Walter served as a paratrooper in the United States Army from 1965 to 1968. He received three Purple Hearts and two Bronze stars during his combat time and fought bravely in many battles, including the Battle of DakTo--a major victory over the North Vietnamese. Perhaps even more impressive than Walter's war history, is his tireless work for the Civil Rights Movement. When he was a young man of 14 years, Walter become the vice president of the local NAACP Youth Council in Kalamazoo, and has been fighting for equal rights for all races ever since. With the combination of Walter's bravery in the Vietnam War and his leadership in the Kalamazoo community, he has been chosen to receive the 2008 Veteran of the Year Award at the Metropolitan Kalamazoo branch of the NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet. I thank Walter Jones for his lifelong commitment to the betterment of our country, and in particular, for his steadfast service to the Kalamazoo community.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this motion unlocks the Canadian tar sands and allows that crude oil to come down to the U.S. I spoke to the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. just a couple of hours ago. They are producing a million and a half barrels a day of this, and they're going to 4 million barrels a day. They're going to do this with us or without us. Wouldn't you rather have this crude come to the U.S. rather than go to China? This will actually reduce greenhouse gases because you won't have to transport it to China. This is a good amendment.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I submit the following: Requesting Member: Congressman Fred Upton. Bill Number: H.R. 5658. Account: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation--Army. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Eaton Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: 19218 B Drive South, Marshall, MI 49068. Description of Request: This request is to provide funding for the final phase of an on-going three phase program between Eaton and the U.S. Army. Eaton Corporation, which produces truck components in Galesburg, Michigan, has successfully worked with the Army over the past several years to develop specialized torque-modifying differentials for the HUMVEE to improve the vehicle safety. Phase I and II of the project was structured to first adapt commercial Eaton side- to-side torque modifying differentials to HUMVEES. These programs have proven very successful in quantitatively demonstrating improved vehicle safety by increasing mobility and stability on rough terrain and drastically reducing vehicle rollovers. Prototype systems will be delivered to the Army for additional testing in May 2008. Military-hardened systems will be subsequently designed. The third and final phase of the program is to develop a front-to- rear transfer case to modulate the driving torque between the front and rear axles. In conjunction with the side-to-side system developed in Phases I and II, this will provide the soldier with the ultimate system for HUMVEE stability and mobility through complete 4x4 active torque management. Financial Breakdown: Funding Source Breakdown: Total Phase III project cost: $3,500,000; Federal funds: $2,500,000; Eaton internal funds: $1,000,000; Percent matching funds = $1,000,000 $3,500,000 100 percent = 29 percent. Allocation of Funds: 15 percent--$375,000--Model hardware function and vehicle maneuvers; 25 percent--$625,000--Materials--modifications to transfer case and addition of differential; 10 percent--$250,000-- Preliminary Bench test and vehicle functional tests; 50 percent-- $1,250,000--Labor--Design/procure hardware, develop preliminary controls software. Justification for the use of taxpayer dollars: This program addresses a key military need for tactical wheeled vehicle stability and mobility. The technology will greatly improve soldier safety and survivability and mission effectiveness. Eaton Automotive is a commercial company serving non-military customers. Taxpayer dollars are requested for this program to adapt Eaton commercial technology to military vehicles.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, though I wish it could do a lot more. I appreciate your remarks, my friend from Oklahoma, and certainly my good friend from Texas, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and I, in large part, echo the remarks of my good friend, the former chairman and now ranking member, Mr. Hunter. Section 526, I'm not sure where it really came from. It was a provision that was snuck in a major energy bill this last year, and it somehow became law. And sadly, as we talk to our Canadian fronts, they're producing 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, 1.5 million barrels a day from oil shale, tar sands rather, in Alberta, and they want to send it to their good friends to the south, the United States of America. And this section 527 stops it at the border. It prevents it from coming in. Now, I think we all know that we have a supply problem in this country which is why the price of gasoline continues to go up as it has every single day. And until we get the message out that we need more supply so that we can counter this price increase, they're going to continue to go up. It's crazy to think that our friends, the Canadians, who have all of this up there and want to send it to us down here in the Lower 48, cannot do that. As I sat down with their ambassador a few weeks ago and their energy minister as well, they're producing at least 1.5 million barrels a day. They're anticipating within 4 or 5 years they're going to be producing as much as 4 million barrels a day. They can't consume that all perhaps, and guess what they're going to do. They're likely to build a pipeline, and they're going to send it west. It's going to end up in China or someplace else, rather than coming down and be refined in this country and used by our motorists across the country. So, for me, I'd like to repeal the whole section, and I know the gentleman doesn't do that in this amendment. But it's a step in the right direction, and I would like to think that we can hold our nose and be able to support this amendment, make it part of going to conference and perhaps even make it better when it emerges from the House and the Senate. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with Members on both sides, and I certainly appreciate a number of my colleagues on that side of the aisle who are looking to work with me to try and repeal the whole section. But we realize that the Rules Committee was not going to say ``yes'' to us, and this is one step. We'd like to take a giant step, which this bill does not do, but at least it is going in the right direction, increasing our supply to a degree so that maybe we can have some downward pressure on the price of gasoline at the pump for all Americans across the country.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to rise today in recognition of the Lawton Fire Department of Lawton, Michigan on the occasion of its 150th anniversary. Since 1858, Lawton firefighters have bravely served their fellow village residents, working endlessly to promote the health, safety, and well-being of their community. In addition to providing protection and emergency relief services, the department has actively invested itself in the Lawton community, positively impacting those lives they seek to protect. I am proud and fortunate to represent the citizens of Southwest Michigan because we believe in continually striving to improve our quality of life. Because of the fine work of courageous men and women at the Lawton Fire Department, Michigan is truly a better place to live. Again, it is my honor to stand today in recognition of the Lawton Fire Department for its 150 years of outstanding and selfless service to the residents of Lawton, Michigan.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I thank my friend, Mr. Ryan. You know, gas prices yesterday in Kalamazoo, Michigan hit $3.99 a gallon. You know, I can remember when our imports from other countries for oil and gas crossed the 50 percent threshold. And then it was 60 percent. In a few years, it's going to be 88 percent of the oil that we consume is going to come from overseas. Sadly, I report that this country is woefully unprepared for the future for a country that's going to need 50 percent more energy by the year 2030. Now, we've done some things on conservation. We've done some CAFE standards, but that's not overnight, it's going to take a number of years. We've done some things on building standards and appliance standards, lighting. Those things kick in a few years from now. But you know what? I think all of us here, based on last night's vote, believe in the theory of supply and demand. Worldwide, the demand is going up dramatically. China and India, 10, 15 percent annual growth rates. Our demand has actually declined because of the price by about a percent over the last year, but the supply has stayed the same. Yes, you can talk about more wells drilled, but the old existing wells aren't producing the oil that they used to. From the nineties to now, Alaskan oil has declined by 50 percent. And yet Bill Clinton, when he vetoed the ANWR bill 10 years ago, said, that's 10 years off, we don't need that now. Well, guess what? Ten years later, we need that oil. We need greater supply. Last night's vote, taking oil out of SPR, 60,000 barrels a day, a lot of us voted for it because that means that the supply is going to go up for consumers by 60,000 barrels a day. So we're onto that. That passed overwhelmingly here in the House. But whether it's Alaska, whether it's offshore drilling--I don't know how many of you here know that China is drilling off Cuba, 45 miles off the Florida coast. China is drilling off Florida, yet we can't do that. I think we have a limit of 100 miles. Eighty-five percent of our offshore drilling is off-bounds. We need to reverse that. Last year in this House, we had a vote that prevailed by six votes that took land in our BLM lands, public lands out in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, it took it off so that we can't allow the permits to get oil shale. The oil shale reserves there are expected to exceed a trillion barrels. That's more than the Saudis. And we can't even allow the permitting for companies to go in and explore and perhaps increase the supply so that we can decrease the price with such a provision. I look forward to a revote on that same amendment perhaps this year. The Canadians. I met with a Canadian Minister of Energy a couple of weeks ago, with a Canadian ambassador. They are now successfully extracting a million barrels a day from oil shale in Alberta. And because of a certain section that was in the energy bill offered successfully last year, we can't take that in this country. If you want to increase the supply so that the price can come down, we have to look at domestic resources, whether they be off our shores, whether they be in our own lands and we know that we can produce it safely, or in Alaska as well, ANWR. We want the oil here. And we want to help have some decreasing pressure on that price that is costing consumers in lots of ways, not only their transportation, but food and all those different things. So I would like to think that we can adopt this resolution, looking for more receipts for the domestic industry.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I just might say in closing as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, we had what I thought was a very favorable hearing earlier this week. I would like to think this is a vehicle we can move this legislation on very quickly rather than resort to the normal process, particularly as we look long term. We can do this in the short term. It makes a lot of sense. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to instruct the conferees to include this in the farm bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers. I am prepared to close if the gentleman yields back his time.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I will say I know that the hour is late. Many of us are trying to get home for the weekend, and there is business after me. So I don't at all intend to take too much of my 30 minutes that I have. But let me yield myself as much time as I may consume now. Mr. Speaker, we are woefully unprepared to meet our energy needs for the next 30 years. Some estimates say that our needs in this country are going to increase as much as 50 percent by the year 2030. So we are going to have to do a much better job on not only looking at alternative forms of energy, we are also going to need to do much more on conservation, nuclear and a whole host of things. And as the majority leader indicated a short time ago, we are looking for some long-term strategies. What this instruction to the conferees does is it takes, in essence, a piece of legislation, a bipartisan piece of legislation that the Energy Subcommittee held hearings on earlier this week, a bill offered by the gentlelady, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, which is bipartisan, and it expands the definition of renewable fuel and biomass to include wood removed as byproducts from National Forest System land or any organic matter that is available on a renewable basis from non-Federal land, including renewable plant material which includes feed grain, other agricultural commodities, other plants and trees, waste material, including crop residue, et cetera, food and yard waste. And it would instruct the conferees to include this on the farm bill. Of course, the farm bill is a bill that is moving along. The farm legislation is a bill that is going to be on the President's desk we hope in the not too distant future. So this is a bill that is going to move. Why not take a piece of bipartisan legislation that deals with alternative fuels like ethanol, expand that, and actually get it to the President's desk so we can do it right away rather than wait for more hearings, markups and dealing with the Senate? Who knows what happens over there. We can actually get this thing done and then address part of the needs that we have in this country to expand our alternative fuel base. So I would like to think that we could adopt this. I know that there is quite a bit of support on it based on the hearing that we held earlier this week. Madam Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, under rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 2419. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Upton moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2419 (an Act to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012) be instructed to recede to the provisions proposed to be added to Section 9001 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 in the form of a definition of ``Renewable Biomass.''

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and want to commend all those that were instrumental in getting its passage to the floor, particularly my good friend, Judy Biggert from Illinois. We have made some wonderful advances in health care research over the number of years. I can remember helping to lead the charge with my colleague, Mr. Waxman, on a bipartisan bill to double the money for the National Institutes of Health back in the nineties, and we had a similar effort in the Senate between John McCain, the Republican leader there of that same issue, and Paul Wellstone, a dear colleague who is no longer with us. But, together we passed that bipartisan legislation. And with those advances, of course we have to look at other things that are pertinent, too, and that is why this Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is so important. I remember traveling to the University of Michigan and meeting with one of the researchers there that in fact had received an NIH grant; and he just weeks before, because of that grant, had identified the breast cancer gene that strikes one in eight women across America. He was excited. And it wouldn't have happened without that NIH money; but with that discovery, it is clear that we have to in fact protect that genetic information from being discriminated against by who knows who. And I would say that, thanks to my colleagues, Mr. Deal, the ranking member on the Health Subcommittee who is in a hearing right now, and Joe Barton, the ranking member, that we have all made advances and worked closely with Chairman Dingell to mitigate what we believed were some significant problems with the legislation as it was introduced. Among other items, we wanted to make sure that any use of information by certain entities regulated under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act not also be regulated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under title II of the bill. Such dual regulation of the use of information would have been highly disruptive and certainly inappropriate. We also made numerous clarifications to make sure that the new regulatory scheme did not disrupt reasonable and needed activities by health plans to improve health care, coordinate benefits, process benefits, or educate beneficiaries. It is important for the Congress to be mindful that we are not writing on a blank slate each and every time that we launch one of these new regulatory and liability schemes. And I certainly join many here that are satisfied that these important improvements made by the Committee on Energy and Commerce are preserved in the bill. I want to commend the bipartisan and bicameral discussions that led to this compromise, and I would urge that we all support it when a roll call vote comes. At this point, I would yield the balance of our time that our committee controls to my friend from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. UPTON

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5613 the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act, and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it. Last week, my colleagues and I on the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously approved H.R. 5613, the Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act. This bill places moratoria on seven regulations issued by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. If allowed to go into effect as currently written, these regulations would seriously erode federal funding to the states for a range of Medicaid services, including rehabilitation and medical services for schoolchildren with disabilities, and would totally eliminate federal Medicaid matching funds for Graduate Medical Education at a time when my state is already in the grip of a growing physician shortage. I am particularly concerned about the detrimental effect that these regulations would have on students and schools in my district and districts across the country. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, schools are required to provide medical and rehabilitation services that are necessary for children to enter and continue to attend school. If federal matching funds are reduced or eliminated, our schools will still be required pay for these services, meaning other vital services and programs would have to be significantly cut back or eliminated. Another major concern of mine is the extent to which these regulations would reduce or eliminate federal matching payments for many of our community hospitals, seriously undermining access to care for poor and disabled women, children, and persons with disabilities. Our hospitals are already struggling under low Medicaid reimbursement rates and higher rates of uncompensated care as my State's economy has worsened. Like schools, hospitals are under a federal mandate--this one to examine and stabilize every patient who walks through their emergency room doors. These regulations could significantly increase hospitals' burden of uncompensated care. I am also concerned about provisions in several of the regulations that could well undo the progress we have made over many years in enabling persons with mental and physical disabilities to live independently and participate as fully as they are able in the workforce and the life of their communities rather than being confined to institutional settings. Because of all these factors, I again encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.