Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Americans have demanded a more efficient government that eliminates outdated and unnecessary bureaucracy; a government that takes a hard look at the market before deciding to regulate it--in short, a government that works. The FCC Consolidated Reporting Act accomplishes those goals, all at no cost to the taxpayer.

Today, the FCC is required to write eight separate reports on discrete components of the communications marketplace. Eight separate reports multiplies the number of hours the FCC spends writing reports, multiplies the number of employees working on such reports, and multiplies the number of times industry has to respond to information requests from the Commission.

The FCC Consolidated Reporting Act takes a smarter approach. It consolidates these eight reports into a single, comprehensive report on the state of the communications marketplace, and eliminates twelve other reports from the Communications Act.

I want to thank Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden and Representative Steve Scalise for working on this important legislation. I support it, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

I would like to claim time on the Republican side in support of the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is really about jobs and the economy. The President, you will remember, in a national address in January, said he would do whatever it takes to create U.S. jobs. That's what this bill does. It creates, by just about everybody's estimate, 20,000 direct jobs and more than 100,000 indirect jobs. And I would note that under Ed Whitfield's leadership, the chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, we went through regular order on this bill last year. We held hearings, we held a subcommittee markup, we had a full committee markup, and last summer we passed it on the House floor by almost a two-to-one margin; obviously, bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, we consume about 18 or 19 million barrels of oil every day. We produce only 8 to 9 million barrels a day. This is a pipeline that will bring us 800,000 barrels a day from our friends, the Canadians.

We've waited 3 years. You'll remember that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in October of 2010 that she was inclined to support this. And in August of last year she said, We'll have the review done before the end of the year. It's not been done yet. And even though this House passed the bill by a significant margin, the Senate did not act. That's why this bill has been attached to a couple of different bills, and now it's part of the highway bill. I support the gentleman's instruction to the conferees to include this.

The route has been rerouted through Nebraska. They now support this new route. We have spent billions of dollars in our refineries across the country trying to get ready for this new source of oil coming from our friends, the Canadians. So what happens if we continue to say no? The Canadians, for sure, are going to still produce this. They're still going to mine the oil sands in Alberta. But it's not going to come here. It's going to go to China. China is prepared to spend with the Canadians literally billions of dollars to send it there, of which none of it will come back to the United States.

That is not the right answer. No, it's not. That's why it's not only a national security issue as part of the highway bill, but it's also a way that we will know that we will have a steady source of supply.

Now let me just make one more point. Today, we import from Canada 2.6 million barrels of oil every single day. A million barrels of that already is oil sands. In my home State of Michigan, the Marathon refinery outside of Detroit has spent $2.2 billion expanding their refinery, preparing for oil sands--not from Alberta, not from this part of Canada, but other parts--of which the oil sands will then be part of what we consume here in the United States. A million barrels of the 2.6 million that Canada sends us every day is oil sands. What is the problem with expanding that by another 800,000 barrels a day that will produce American jobs and allow us to have less reliance on friends like Venezuela and folks in the Middle East, if we can use our best friend, Canada, to help us provide this oil to the United States?

So I support the gentleman's instruction. I hope that it will pass when we have the vote tomorrow.

I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be reserved and under the direction of Mr. Whitfield, the subcommittee chair of the Energy and Power Subcommittee.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this is a highway and infrastructure bill. That means it is a jobs bill. Now, I would remind my colleagues and those watching that the President said back in January, as part of his weekly address, that he would do whatever it takes, whatever it takes, to create jobs. There is not a more shovel-ready project than the Keystone XL pipeline, period.

Secretary Clinton said in October of 2010, I am inclined to support this project. In August of 2011, she indicated that there was no reason why they couldn't give an approval or a denial by the end of last year.

This is 20,000 direct jobs, more than 100,000 indirect jobs, a $7 billion privately funded pipeline that will subscribe to the pipeline safety bill that this committee as well as the Energy and Commerce Committee worked on, that the President signed this last year, raising the standards, raising the fines for those that violate those standards. It is a better pipeline safety route than ever before. I have to say for those detractors, the route has been changed through Nebraska. It will no longer go through that aquifer.

We will bring as much as 800,000 barrels of oil from the oil sands in Canada. As these gas prices continue to go up, Americans understand supply and demand; 800,000 barrels a day that we can get from our friends, the Canadians. If we don't do so, where is it going to go? China. China is already preparing to spend billions of dollars to instead build that pipeline to Vancouver, send it to China to be refined and, guess what, we will get none of that refined oil back.

Some detractors of this project say why don't we just build a refinery in North Dakota. Well, let's say we did. Are you not going to still then build a pipeline to connect it with the supply routes across the country?

Mr. Speaker, we haven't built a new refinery since 1976. EPA will not allow new refineries to be built. We have spent instead billions of dollars to expand the refineries that we have.

Under regular order we moved this Keystone pipeline last summer. It passed on the House floor two-to-one. There is no reason why a construction project like this shouldn't be in this bill. I look forward to the passage of this bill later this afternoon with the inclusion of the Keystone XL pipeline.

Mr. Chairman, this is a highway and infrastructure bill, which means it is a jobs bill.

I commend Mr. Boustany in a bipartisan effort to add this as an amendment to this bill.

I represent the Great Lakes. We have a number of commercial as well as recreational harbors, but throughout the season we're bringing sand, gravel, cement, salt for the winter into our commercial ports. And sadly we've had a number of ports close this year in west Michigan, where those lake carriers have not been able to get in because they need to be dredged.

This bill allows the Great Lake harbors to be dredged with its passage. The difference is this: on a lake carrier, it's about 600 miles per gallon per ton of cargo that you can ship on a lake carrier rather than spending 4 cents or 5 cents on diesel fuel per mile per truck. The difference for just my district is you can bring this in from the UP and other places into the southern part of Lake Michigan rather than trucking it in for hundreds of miles to the closest border.

This is a good bill and a good amendment. I'm glad to support it.

I would just like to remind the House that this amendment is the same bill that the House passed last year with a vote of 267 144. We moved this through regular order through our committee hearings, subcommittee and full committee markup, and I want to say, as I recall, by nearly a 3 1 margin in the full committee did we pass this amendment.

This amendment establishes a program that protects human health and environment. It requires groundwater monitoring and requires that States monitor for the same constituents that EPA identified as being important for the regulation of coal ash. The amendment also requires that States require liners for new structures and establishes appropriate controls on fugitive dust.

For 2 years, EPA has been considering regulating coal ash. This bill would allow the safe use of coal ash in such products as concrete, wallboard, and roofing shingles. As the gentleman from West Virginia said, it saves 316,000 jobs. This is a highway and infrastructure bill. It is a jobs bill. This saves American jobs, and it is very important that the House continue to support the McKinley amendment, whether it be a freestanding bill, as we did last year, or the amendment to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Benton Harbor's Destiny Williams of the Lady Bears of Baylor University on her team's victory in the NCAA women's basketball championship. She is an outstanding young woman who helped lead her team to a perfect season, a rare and timeless accomplishment. Our entire community could not be more proud of Destiny and the remarkable basketball career she has made for herself. This is only the second time her team has won the championship and is a testament to her great success.

Winning a national championship is something that will last a lifetime. It is a remarkable achievement that few athletes ever experience, and is a legacy that will live with Destiny and the Lady Bears forever. Destiny knows that hard work, discipline, and teamwork helped her team win this championship. These same qualities brought a big 2008 victory to the Benton Harbor Lady Tigers in the state championship game. Nobody outworked the Lady Bears and nobody could beat them in the tournament or the regular season. Ending their perfect season with an NCAA championship speaks to Destiny's abilities as a leader and team player.

Destiny's 12 points and 6 rebounds in the championship game helped her team to victory. She is such an inspiration for young women back home and we are all so eager to see what the future holds in store for our Lady Tiger, now Lady Bear.

On behalf of all the residents of southwest Michigan, congratulations again to Destiny Williams. You make all of us here in Michigan very proud.

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. 5.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

I rise today in support of the PATH Act, which addresses two of the most glaring deficiencies in the President's overhaul of the health care system.

By what it does and also by what it fails to do, the health care law threatens access to quality health care for literally millions of Americans.

Section 3403 of the Affordable Care Act established the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. A panel of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats will be given the power to make major decisions regarding what goods and services are valuable. These decisions will then be fast-tracked, essentially bypassing the legislative process, with almost no opportunity for discussion or review. The PATH Act prevents this by repealing IPAB.

I suspect that most Americans still believe that patients and their doctors should have a voice and should be able to decide what health care services that they find valuable. I think that they still believe that major policy decisions affecting the Medicare program and the health care system in general need to go through the regular legislative process and be subject to the normal system of checks and balances according to the Constitution.

It is encouraging that the cosponsors of legislation to repeal IPAB include 20 Democrats and that the bill was favorably reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this month without any recorded opposition--a voice vote.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support repealing IPAB and not to block its passage at the expense of our seniors in a blind effort to defend the President's signature legislation.

The legislation today also includes reforms that will actually lower the

cost of health care, a glaring omission in the President's health care law. The health care law failed to provide any meaningful reform to the broken and costly medical liability system, which is currently one of the largest cost drivers of our health care system.

The current system is responsible for as much as $200 billion a year in unnecessary spending on defensive medicine. It fails to compensate injured patients in a fair and timely matter, and it threatens access to quality health care by driving good doctors out of high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and neurosurgery.

According to the CBO, these commonsense reforms will reduce the Federal deficit by $48.6 billion over the next 10 years.

How have opponents proposed to fix this present system? They want to spend more; $50 million in grants for State demonstrations, as called for in the health care law, is not a solution. It's an abdication of responsibility. The President promised to look at Republican ideas for medical liability reform. Passing this legislation is the very first step towards allowing the President to make good on that promise.

Health care decisions should be made between a doctor and a patient. That relationship doesn't work when bureaucrats and trial lawyers come between them. So I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton, the gentleman from Texas.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, the vice chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mrs. Myrick.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, Congress passed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 on February 17, 2012. As House majority conferees, as well as chairmen of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, we are pleased that the spectrum auction provisions in Title VI, Subtitle D, of the legislation are based on the Jumpstarting Opportunity with Broadband Spectrum, JOBS, Act of 2011. We helped pass the JOBS Act in the House on December 13, 2011, as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011. Like the JOBS Act, Title VI, Subtitle D, of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 is designed to spur the next generation of wireless investment and innovation, to bring in federal revenue in the form of auction proceeds, and to promote significant new job creation. Among other things, Subtitle D allows the FCC to share proceeds with licensees, like broadcasters, that voluntarily return spectrum to be re-auctioned to meet the growing demand for commercial mobile broadband services. To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from picking winners and losers, Subtitle D prohibits the agency from excluding qualified bidders from participating in the auctions. To protect taxpayers, Subtitle D also requires the FCC to auction spectrum it has used federal funds to clear. What follows is a section by section explanation of some of Subtitle D's significant spectrum provisions.

Section 6401. This subsection establishes clearing and auction timelines for spectrum in 1915 1920 MHz and 1995 2000 MHz (the PCS H Block), 2155 2180 MHz (the AWS 3 block), 15 MHz from the government spectrum at 1675 1710 MHz, and 15 MHz to be determined by the FCC.

Section 6402. This section amends the Communications Act to grant the FCC authority to conduct incentive auctions under which it shares some of the proceeds with licensees that return spectrum to be re-auctioned for commercial use. Such auctions must have

competition on the ``reverse'' side--the portion of the auction that sets the buy-out price. To do otherwise would provide insufficient market competition to minimize costs and would create little more than a substitute for a license transfer.

Section 6403. This section grants the FCC special authority to conduct an incentive auction for television broadcast spectrum.

Subsection (a) governs the ``reverse'' side of the auction. Broadcasters may propose to relinquish their licenses to leave the market completely, to share a license with another broadcast licensee, or to move from a UHF channel to a VHF channel. The reverse ``bids'' they place represent the amount of money they would accept to exit, share, or move from a UHF channel to a VHF channel. The FCC is directed to maintain the confidentiality of auction participants until reassignments and reallocations are complete so as not to prejudice the ongoing business operations and relationships of broadcasters, including broadcasters whose bids may not ultimately be accepted. Spectrum recovered through this mechanism is to be auctioned for licensed services under section 309(j) of the Communications Act. This subsection also defines the retransmission consent and must carry rights of licensees who choose to channel share.

Subsection (b) governs the relocation of broadcast incumbents who do not leave the market through the incentive auction process. This allows the FCC to reorganize the remaining broadcast channels in a way that makes the cleared spectrum most valuable for re-auction, both in terms of monetary value and usefulness for licensed broadband services. To protect broadcasters, however, subsection (b) prohibits the FCC from involuntarily relocating broadcasters from UHF channels to VHF channels. It also requires the FCC to make all reasonable efforts to preserve relocating broadcasters' coverage area and population served. Subsection (b) also qualifies for reimbursement of reasonable relocation costs those broadcasters that are not being compensated through the reverse auction, cable systems that must retune or relocate their systems in order to receive the signals from the newly relocated broadcasters, and channel 37 incumbents (provided the entirety of channel 37 can be cleared for less than $300 million). Section 6402 limits to $1.75 billion the amount the FCC can spend to reimburse relocating broadcasters, cable operators, and incumbents on channel 37. Section 6403(b) also provides broadcasters the option of requesting specific regulatory relief in lieu of recovering relocation expenses. Finally, this subsection makes clear that while low-power broadcasters without class A status cannot participate in the incentive auctions, the incentive auction relocation authority under subsection (b) does not change the rights of low-power broadcasters.

Subsection (c) governs the forward auction of new licenses made available by the reverse auction and relocation process. The spectrum made available by the purchase of licenses through the reverse auction and reallocated under this section must be auctioned for commercial services through the mechanisms detailed in this subsection. This subsection ensures that the auction is both self-funding and generates a profit for the U.S. Treasury. This subsection also encourages the FCC to assign licenses in a variety of geographic sizes.

Subsection (d) allows the FCC to borrow in advance up to $1 billion of the $1.75 billion available for relocation costs.

Subsection (e) allows the FCC to conduct only one special incentive auction for the broadcast spectrum. It does so to encourage the FCC and broadcasters to make best efforts to ensure success of the special auction rather than await the results of a first attempt. Broadcasters may still participate in general incentive auctions authorized under Section 6402, although certain offsetting FCC flexibilities and broadcaster protections in Section 6403(b), (g), and (h) do not apply.

Subsection (f) leaves to FCC discretion whether to conduct the reverse and forward broadcast incentive auctions contemporaneously or separately.

Subsections (g) and (h) work in concert with the provisions of subsection (b) to create offsetting FCC flexibilities and broadcaster protections to facilitate the broadcast incentive auction. Subsection (g) creates certain limitations on the FCC's ability to relocate broadcasters or modify their spectrum usage rights during the pendency of the broadcast incentive auction. Subsection (h) limits broadcasters' rights to protest license modifications made pursuant to the broadcast incentive auction provisions.

Subsection (i) clarifies that the FCC's November 8, 2008, ``White Spaces'' order continues to apply to vacant channels in the reconstituted television broadcast band after the incentive auction, reorganization of the broadcast channels, and re-allocation of spectrum for broadband use.

Section 6404. This section prevents the FCC from excluding qualified bidders from participating in spectrum auctions so long as they abide by the auction procedures. Such ``prior restraints'' would be antithetical to the notion of open auctions, which use a competitive, market-based approach to allocate spectrum to those entities that will put the spectrum to its highest and best use. By maximizing the amount of spectrum available for auction and offering a variety of geographic licenses and license sizes, the FCC can help ensure all potential bidders--local, national, and regional; urban and rural--have an opportunity to obtain spectrum to address the exponential increase in demand for spectrum caused by the increased use of smartphones and tablets by U.S. consumers.

Under this section, the sole qualifications of bidders are that they abide by the auction procedures and other requirements to protect the auction process, and that they meet the technical, financial, character, and citizenship requirements under sections 303(1)(1), 308(b), and 310 of the Communications Act at the time of bidding or, if they submit a winning bid, before grant of the license. The phrase ``auction procedures'' refers to the mechanics of the auction, such as the ``activity rule.'' The phrase ``other requirements to protect the auction process'' refers to rules to protect auction integrity, such as those restricting collusion.

The FCC should not be picking winners and losers: the market should. As demand for spectrum grows exponentially in the mobile broadband age, all carriers will need additional spectrum, and artificially limiting access to certain entities or skewing auctions to favor them will lead to inefficient outcomes that ultimately hurt consumers. Moreover, recent history demonstrates that attempting to ``shape'' the market by micromanaging auctions leads to unintended consequences that hinder competition, harm spectrum policy, reduce auction proceeds, and result in valuable spectrum lying fallow for years.

This section also makes clear it is not intended to affect any remaining authority the FCC has to adopt and enforce rules of general applicability, as opposed to rules regarding particular carriers, particular classes of carriers, or particular auctions. The rigor of a notice and comment rulemaking conducted separately from a particular auction better ensures that all interested parties participate, not just parties courting particular spectrum. It also helps ensure that the FCC rigorously examines whether there is any need for action, as well as the pros, cons, and potential unintended consequences of any proposed measures. Conducting such a proceeding separately also ensures parties have a more realistic opportunity for appeal. Challenging rules adopted in the lead up to an auction are logistically challenging in that time is typically short, in that courts are likely reluctant to delay an auction or invalidate it after the fact, and in that if courts do, they potentially affect interests of all the auction participants, not just the challenging party.

It is not intended, however, that the FCC act in a way that would override or undermine the fundamental purpose of this section--ensuring open and wide participation in spectrum auctions in order to put spectrum to its highest and best use and to increase auction revenues. The reference to ``rules concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition'' is not meant to confer any new authority on the agency, but merely to illustrate that the FCC retains authority to adopt such rules in an industrywide rulemaking to the extent such authority can be found elsewhere in the Communications Act and does not conflict with the prohibition on excluding bidders.

Section 6405. This section extends the FCC's auction authority through 2022.

Section 6406. This section instructs the FCC and NTIA to pursue additional secondary allocations of spectrum for unlicensed use by evaluating the viability of sharing spectrum with government operations in the 5 GHz band.

Section 6407. This section clarifies that nothing in sections 6402 or 6403 shall be construed to prevent the FCC from using relinquished or other spectrum to implement band plans with guard bands. Such guard bands shall be no larger than is technically reasonable to prevent harmful interference

between licensed services outside the guard bands. The FCC may permit unlicensed use in such guard bands. Unlicensed use shall rely on a database or subsequent methodology as determined by the FCC. The FCC may not permit any use of a guard band that would cause harmful interference to licensed services. Thus, this section makes clear that the FCC is free to create guard bands and allow secondary, unlicensed use in spectrum it has cleared with federal funds and auctioned under sections 6402 or 6403, so long as such guard bands are no larger than technically reasonable to prevent harmful interference between licensed services outside the guard bands and the use does not interfere with the licensed uses.

Section 6408. Over the last 20 years, licensees trying to use their spectrum as authorized have started to experience limitations on service because adjacent spectrum users are relying on receivers that are not sufficiently tailored to focus just on the spectrum allocated for their adjacent use. The result has been lower power limits, restricted uses of spectrum, and a proliferation of guard bands. This section requires the GAO to submit a study to Congress not later than one year after the passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 detailing current spectrum uses and whether changes to receiver performance, changes to operational aspects of existing spectrum uses, and narrowing of existing guard bands can help make more efficient use of the scarce spectrum resource.

Section 6409. This section streamlines the process for siting of wireless facilities by preempting the ability of State and local authorities to delay collocation of, removal of, and replacement of wireless transmission equipment. It also increases access by establishing a uniform process for access to Federal rights-of-way and easements. It establishes a master contract process for siting wireless facilities on Federal Government owned property and buildings.

Section 6410. This section amends the NTIA Organization Act to make efficient use of spectrum by federal agencies one of the NTIA's core responsibilities. As we search for the 500 MHz of spectrum that the National Broadband Plan recommends we find to address the Nation's growing wireless broadband demands, it is critical to ensure that government users maximize the use of the spectrum devoted to their missions. Government users represent a significant portion of the use of spectrum below 3 GHz. Ensuring that agencies use this resource efficiently should be a tenet of the NTIA's stewardship of this important public resource.

Section 6411. This section requires OMB to update section 33.4 of OMB Circular A 11 to reflect recommendations in the January 11, 2011, Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee Incentive Subcommittee report. OMB Circular A 11 currently requires agencies to integrate the cost of spectrum into their capital planning and management process. The CSMAC Incentives Subcommittee recommended changes to that circular that make the spectrum use analysis more robust, including whether new federal spectrum uses will share spectrum with other systems, a detailed explanation of the efficiency gains compared to the prior use, and consideration of non-spectrum based systems and commercial alternatives. Moreover, agencies must show that the chosen solution is the most spectrum efficient or explain why it is seeking to implement a solution that is less spectrum efficient.

Section 6412. This section requires the GAO to study the use of the 11 GHz, 18 GHz, and 23 GHz microwave bands with a focus on whether the spectrum is being used efficiently and whether commercial alternatives to the FCC licensing of such bands are sufficiently incentivizing efficient use.

Section 6413. This section establishes the Public Safety Trust Fund, where most auction proceeds under this Act are deposited. It also establishes a cascading series of priorities for use of auction proceeds. First priority is given to repayment of funds borrowed against the $7 billion authorized elsewhere in the title to establish the First Responder Network Authority and the State and local broadband offices. Next in priority is the remainder of the $7 billion for buildout of the public safety broadband network and $100 million for research and development related to public safety broadband communications, followed by $20.4 billion for deficit reduction. From any remaining auction revenues produced above approximately $27 billion, $115 million is used to fund the Next Generation 9/11 provisions under subtitle E of this title and an additional $200 million may be used for further wireless research and development of public safety broadband communications.

Section 6414. This section requires the GAO to study the capabilities and use of amateur radio operators in times of emergency and to make recommendations to improve integration of amateur radio operators in disaster response.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the great State of Michigan for yielding.

I rise, obviously, in support of this conference report. It's not perfect, but it is certainly the right thing to do now.

Our economy is still struggling big time. Families are struggling. In my home State of Michigan, we know better than anywhere else the pain of high unemployment and anemic economic growth. And extending the temporary payroll tax relief and unemployment benefits, it's not the way to fix the economy, but we need to do it now to offer a measure of relief to those in need.

But our long-term goal is certainly much bigger: We've got to fix the economy. We've got to create jobs. We need to return America to a place where these temporary patches are not needed.

In addition to the payroll tax and unemployment health extension, this package includes the doc fix through the end of the year to protect seniors who depend on Medicare and prevent physician reimbursement rates from being slashed by nearly 30 percent. Again, it is but a temporary solution to a long-term problem.

As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am absolutely committed to working with my good friend Chairman Camp to develop a permanent solution to the Medicare physician payment system, one that protects seniors and their doctors in the long term while also protecting taxpayers and making sure that Medicare is efficient, effective, and sustainable.

These temporary solutions are a big part of the package, but, Madam Speaker, it would be a terrible mistake to ignore another part of the package, one that will help support literally hundreds of thousands of jobs, one that will spur billions of dollars of investment in our economy and affect the daily lives of nearly every American. I'm talking about spectrum reform.

Spectrum, it's the airwaves that carry wireless communication. Spectrum is all around us and we sure do use it. With the explosion in smartphones, tablets, mobile broadband devices, Americans are using more spectrum than ever before. This bill helps our country make more efficient use of those airwaves.

We're clearing large swaths of spectrum for innovative wireless investments, and the upshot is that wireless companies will pay the taxpayers billions of dollars for the right to build the next generation of wireless networks. It's a huge win for consumers and taxpayers.

This package is the culmination of years of effort, bipartisan effort, numerous hearings, extensive stakeholder input, cooperation on both sides of the aisle.

I want to recognize my good friend and chairman of the Communications and Telecommunications Subcommittee, both Greg Walden and Anna Eshoo from California, for their tireless efforts to push this bill across the finish line.

No qualified bidder can be excluded from the auction, and we're not giving away airwaves that the taxpayers paid to clear. These are good, solid reforms with clear congressional intent, and I appreciate the hard work to get an agreement and advance this wireless future.

I thank all my colleagues on the conference committee. We worked together, we got it done, and the taxpayer's going to be better off.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lieutenant Bennie F. Bowers, Jr., a native of Benton Harbor, Michigan, who is retiring from the Michigan State Police after 25 years of impeccable service.

It is with great pleasure that I congratulate Lieutenant Bowers on his impressive and inspiring service record to the state of Michigan. His 25 years of steadfast community involvement have helped keep Michigan safe, and have made all of us from Southwest Michigan extremely proud. Lieutenant Bowers' renowned career includes protecting Michigan's citizens while posted at Michigan State Police's Battle Creek Post, Paw Paw District Headquarters and Regional Dispatch, Detroit Post, and most recently, the Metro Post. His selfless actions have made a real difference to folks within and outside of my district for decades. Lt. Bowers used innovative methods to enforce law. He was never satisfied with the status quo, and always worked to improve the communities in which he worked. He was respected by his peers and known as one to ``lead by example.''

Lt. Bowers' leadership is exemplified in his founding of the Michigan Youth Leadership Academy. Lt. Bowers recognized the importance of fostering discipline, respect, leadership, and teamwork in our youth. His efforts assisted in the reduction of youth crime and ingrained skills which those youth will carry with them for their whole lives. Lt. Bowers was also instrumental in the Michigan State Police Explorer Program, a program that works with youth interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement. Part of Lt. Bowers' legacy will be the youth he influenced to serve as Michigan's next generation of law enforcement officers.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Lt. Bowers' inspiring commitment to our great state and my constituents. I applaud Bennie on a fine career and wish him the best of luck in his retirement and future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, today I bid farewell and best wishes to Jim Barnette, the incomparable Energy and Commerce Committee General Counsel.

When I became Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, everyone told me I needed someone like Jim Barnette to serve as General Counsel. He served under three Chairmen before me and, though he was no longer in government service, his legacy of jurisdictional tenacity and seemingly limitless institutional knowledge remained.

Not content with a mere likeness, I informed Jim I was revoking his leave of absence and he was to report for duty promptly. Much to my delight, like any true public servant, he obliged.

As a veteran of the procedural, political, and policy battlefield, there was no one better suited to take the reins as General Counsel for the Committee when I began my tenure as Chairman at the outset of the 112th Congress.

Jim styles himself a country lawyer, but he brings a level of experience and wisdom to our Committee that is quite simply unmatched on Capitol Hill. He helped assemble and mentor the strongest team on Capitol Hill, building a backbone for our Committee staff that will stand the test of time.

He is a General Counsel in the fullest sense of the title: a faithful counselor to Members and staff and a forceful advocate for the issues before the Committee.

He has been a trusted partner, an expert negotiator, a skilled tactician, and a true friend. I wish Jim and his wife Chelo well, extending my sincere thanks for the year they set aside that allowed me to bring Jim back to the Committee. As we say at the Energy and Commerce Committee, Jim is the best.

I thank you, my friend from Michigan, chairman of Ways and Means.

Let's face it, Mr. Speaker, people across the country are not very happy, and they are, frankly, so tired of Washington games. They know that we have a divided government. They don't want a deal; they want a solution.

Yes, they want to reform unemployment; yes, they want to extend the payroll tax deduction; and, yes, they want a doc fix. Without the doc fix, we put, literally, millions of Americans in jeopardy of decent health care because their physicians are not going to have the proper reimbursement from Medicare.

But coming from the State of Michigan, I know that what Americans want most are jobs. This bill, the Republican alternative, provides jobs for Keystone, 20,000 shovel-ready jobs in a $7 billion private investment right away; boiler MACT regs, something that will protect as many as 200,000 businesses across the country; and spectrum, the sale of the spectrum will create literally perhaps as many as 50,000 to 100,000 jobs as well.

The last Congress didn't deal with the budget, and we spent the first couple of months of this year dealing with what we thought was Lucy and the football: bringing up a continuing resolution, watching it be extended for a week or 2, and then coming back with another one. If we don't deal with these issues today, we're going to have the same trouble in the next year, in the next couple of months.

So let's stop playing Lucy and the football. Let's get a real solution to a problem that Americans want us to solve. Please support the Republican alternative on this and respect the wishes of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

This bill does a lot of things. It has real reforms. It's driven in large part by the unemployment reforms and extending the payroll tax cut, and it's all paid for.

Most Americans don't really want unemployment. They want a job. The spectrum provisions in this bill help our first responders with the allocation of the D block and creates perhaps as many as 100,000 jobs. The Keystone pipeline decision is part of this bill, too. It requires the President to review and make a decision, either way, within 60 days of enactment.

Just this morning, there were a number of press accounts that perhaps Iran will soon be conducting exercises to close the Straits of Hormuz. The Keystone pipeline will connect Canadian oil sands with refineries here in the United States, adding 20,000 private sector jobs and perhaps as many as 118,000 indirect jobs. It reduces our reliance on non-North American oil, which is a good thing. And it brings perhaps as many as 1 million barrels of oil a day--1 million barrels a day--into the United States that we don't have to import from someplace else. Canada is going to develop this no matter what. And that oil, 1 million barrels a day, is either going to come to the United States or it's going to a place like China. We want it here.

This is a good thing. It creates jobs. It reduces our reliance on oil from overseas. It is something that ought to be part of this bill, and it is. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the Chair how much time is available on each side?

At this point, I will yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again on the time? I think we're a couple of minutes ahead.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to cochair of the Doc Caucus and a member of the Health Subcommittee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Phil Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will yield 1 of my 2 remaining minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all of my remaining time be given back to the gentleman from the great State of Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment to H.R. 2845, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011.

Enacting pipeline safety this year has been a personal priority of mine and a top priority of the entire Energy and Commerce Committee on a very strong bipartisan basis. This legislation is the product of collaboration between our committee, Energy and Commerce members, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on Commerce; and it reflects consensus across party lines.

With it, we make great strides to ensure our Nation's energy supplies are transported in as safe a manner as possible. Over the last couple of years, several major pipeline accidents have occurred across the country that revealed specific gaps in pipeline safety laws and regulations. It is our duty in Congress to look at these events and determine what we can do to better protect the public and the environment.

Among these accidents was a 20,000-barrel oil pipeline spill in a tributary of the Kalamazoo River, just outside of my district. The spill forced dozens of families out of their homes--in many cases, permanently--and caused extensive environmental damage to a waterway many residents enjoyed for fishing and canoeing.

Unfortunately, this is not the only major accident in recent memory. The September 2010 gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California, killed eight people and destroyed 37 homes. Another gas line explosion last year in Allentown, Pennsylvania, killed five people as well. And this summer, an oil pipeline buried underneath the iconic Yellowstone River in Wyoming ruptured and sent over 1,000 barrels of crude oil downstream.

These incidents highlighted, certainly, shortcomings in our Nation's pipeline safety laws, and today we are here to correct that.

The legislation before us today offers historic improvements to the manner in which the Federal Government regulates energy pipelines. It accomplishes this by strengthening standards in several areas, while maintaining the continued economical delivery of vital energy supplies. For these reasons, this bill enjoys the support of a broad array of stakeholders, from the Pipeline Safety Trust to the American Gas Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the Gas Processors Association, and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.

The bill is several months in the making and could not have been accomplished without the hard work and dedication of a bipartisan group of Members. This is a topic many of us take very seriously, as it affected us and our constituents on a personal level. And today we can say party affiliation and politics have taken a back seat to accomplishing the people's work, and for that, I must offer my heartfelt thanks.

Congratulations to the chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee who is on the floor tonight, John Dingell; the ranking member of the committee who is, again, on the House floor, Henry Waxman; the chairman of the Transportation Committee, John Mica; and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, Bill Shuster.

I urge all Members to support this legislation.

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. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

No question, from the largest manufacturer to the smallest farm or ranch, not enough businesses are thriving in this economy. The recovery has been slow and weak, job growth has been anemic, and the continuous rollout of expensive new regulations has only made it harder to get the economy back on track. That's why the House continues to approve bipartisan legislation addressing costly EPA rules, and that is why I support this legislation, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act.

This bill achieves two important goals: regulatory certainty in the short term and common sense for rural America in the long term. The bill retains the current coarse particulate matter standard for 1 year--a position that Administrator Lisa Jackson from EPA has embraced with her plans to propose maintaining the standard--and it offers regulatory relief to rural America by recognizing that States and local communities are better equipped to monitor and control farm dust. EPA would no longer be in the business of regulating rural dust except in cases where it is not already regulated and the benefits of EPA regulation outweigh the costs.

Opponents of this bill insist that it's not necessary and that rural America has nothing to worry about, but the voices of rural America tell quite a different story. Listen to the American Farm Bureau Federation and all of its State affiliates. Listen to the Cattlemen's Beef Association and over 185 other organizations who collectively represent a significant portion of the rural economy, including Michigan and across the country. These organizations believe that this bill is necessary, and so do I.

The bill makes clear that the lead role in regulating nuisance dust should rest with State, local, and tribal governments, not the EPA.

This is a smart step for a lot of reasons. For one thing, State, local, and tribal governments already address rural dust issues. For another, dust issues differ greatly from location to location and thus are not well suited to a one-size-fits-all Federal approach. Further, these levels of governments do a much better job than the Federal EPA when it comes to weighing both the costs and the benefits of various options and choosing a path that is cost-effective and achieves the greatest benefits.

Finally, under this bill, in the absence of State, local, and tribal regulation, EPA may step in and regulate nuisance dust if the case for net benefits can be made for it. This bill is a commonsense bill that removes a regulatory threat to economic growth and prosperity across rural America. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.