Floor Statements

Coal ash is a serious issue for this country and especially for Pennsylvania. Nearly all of my constituents get their power from coal, and with that power generation comes its byproduct-- coal ash. It's an unavoidable part of our power generation in southwestern Pennsylvania.

And though the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has some of the toughest coal ash disposal standards in the country, I have been convinced that coal ash needs to be federally regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, known as RCRA.

Now, we've had the opportunity to vote on the coal ash issue several times this year. We've seen policy riders on appropriation bills and legislation that tied the hands of the Federal Government to regulate coal ash. I haven't supported a single one.

So let's be clear: I have no record of hamstringing EPA or limiting environmental protections. But there's been a lot of half-truths flying around about this bill, and I think we should clear things up. For the first time, coal ash disposal will be federally regulated under RCRA through programs run by the States. Though implemented by the States, the permit programs will be developed according to Federal standards from section 4010(c) of RCRA, the section that must serve as the baseline for these State permit programs that require criteria necessary to protect human health and the environment.

We've also heard this bill will create a ``race to the bottom'' whereby utilities will ship their coal ash to States with the least stringent regulations. That's just not realistic. If this were a real concern, utilities in Pennsylvania would already be doing this, as we have very strict regulation of coal ash. But utilities in Pennsylvania don't ship their coal ash out of State because it's just not economically feasible to do so.

I'm pleased to hear good, informed debate this morning with important points being made by both sides. We've made significant improvements to this bill, and there is still more that can be done. But we need the chance to move legislation that will for the first time allow us to federally regulate coal ash. I believe this bill was the necessary vehicle to move that goal forward, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

I yield to my colleague from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, we've been debating this bill, H.R. 2250, for several months now in the Energy and Commerce Committee. And as we've heard from the bill's supporters, the bill is intended to address the Boiler MACT rule that was proposed by EPA in April of 2010 and finalized in February of 2011.

Many of us here know that when the Boiler MACT regulation was finalized, EPA asked for 15 months to issue a reproposal. The courts rejected that request and, thus, EPA was forced to issue the rule on time in February of 2011. However, EPA immediately instituted an administrative stay on several major rules within the regulation, saying that they would begin reconsideration with new information that had been made available.

In the last few months, I've met with many industries and companies that expressed concern with the provisions in this final rule. I've listened and even helped foster ongoing conversations between those industries and EPA as they worked toward a reproposal of the Boiler MACT rule.

Then we were offered this bill, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act. We were told that this bill would simply give EPA the time that they had already asked for to work on the rule and repropose a new final rule. After the conversations I had had with companies in my district, I thought this would be a good solution.

The problem is, when you dig a little deeper, I've said for a long time, this EPA Boiler MACT rule is far from perfect. But the trouble is the bill we have before us today is even further from perfect because it doesn't just give EPA time to reconsider the rule; it tells EPA they can't issue a new rule for at least 15 months. But there's no deadline for final action. Further, it practically rewrites sections 112 and 129 of the Clean Air Act by eliminating the need for numeric emission limits for MACT standards.

But perhaps the most egregious to me was section 3 of the bill. It once again rewrites the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act provides for 3 years for compliance with MACT standards with the possibility of a 4th. Section 3 of this bill tells us to throw that out. It tells us that for the Boiler MACT rule, compliance cannot be required for at least 5 years. However, it then says to the EPA administrator, it gives the administrator the ability to establish compliance dates. So depending on who the administrator is at the time these rules are finalized, compliance could be required in 5 years, in 10 years, in 50 years, in 105 years. That's just unacceptable, and that's why I'm offering this amendment today.

I support many of the things in this bill and I recognize the need for a reproposal of this rule, but I don't support 5 years to infinity for compliance. And so this amendment will simply require that we go back to the established compliance time lines in the Clean Air Act. It even gives the possibility for an additional year of compliance if a compelling reason is found.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and make this a bill that we can all support when it comes for final passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would say to my friend--and this is my good friend--I'm with you all the way right till the very end. The one concern that we have is you say that the compliance date can't be any less than 5 years. If you would have just said that compliance shall be at 5 years, that there's a date certain, the problem with your legislation is there's no date certain. It sort of says to the administrator, it can't be sooner than 5 years, but it could be as long as you determine that you want it to be. It could theoretically be a hundred years. I'm not saying it would be a hundred years, but theoretically speaking.

We realize that the proposed rule has flaws and it needs to be reworked. I'm with you on the 15-month rewrite, and we're working with industries right in Pittsburgh with EPA on this as we speak. What concerns many of us is that there's no time line, there's no end line, for compliance in your legislation. You say no less than 5 years, but you never say when is the final deadline. All this amendment asks for is to go back to the Clean Air Act where there's some definition. It's 3 years with the possibility of additional time if the case calls for it. I think if we could get some sort of a finalized deadline on compliance, that you could get a lot of support on this side of the aisle and possibly even pass this bill. As it's written today, it makes it impossible for those of us that are sympathetic to a lot of what is in this bill to be able to support it, and I think it makes it difficult for the President to sign it and for it to pass the Senate.

I would just ask my friend, as we consider this legislation, that we at least give some certainty to the folks who want their air clean that at some point there's going to be a line that says, this is the end date, this is when you comply, not some date in the future that's not defined in the bill.

I thank my friend for yielding.

If my friend could yield one more second, I would just say to you, if your bill simply had a 5-year compliance deadline and the Clean Air Act said 3 years with the possibility of an extension, I think you would have something that many of us would consider because you would have a 5-year deadline. You don't have a deadline. That's my problem. You have a no-sooner-than, but you don't have a deadline.

I thank my friend.

Offered By: Mr. Doyle

Amendment No. 4: Page 6, beginning on line 20, strike

paragraph (1) and insert the following paragraphs (and

redesignate the subsequent paragraph accordingly):

(1) shall establish a date for compliance with standards

and requirements under such regulation in accordance with

section 112(i)(3) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

7412(i)(3));

(2) may, if the Administrator determines there is a

compelling reason to extend the date for such compliance,

provide an extension, in addition to any extension under

section 112(i)(3)(B) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(3)(B)),

extending the date for such compliance up to one year, but in

no case beyond the date that is 5 years after the effective

date of such regulation; and

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the House of Representatives is considering legislation to reauthorize the Combating Autism Act, and it's not a moment too soon with the Combating Autism Act set to expire at the end of this month.

I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of this act, and I also want to thank my counterpart, my colleague and my good friend, Chris Smith, on the other side of the aisle, for his leadership on this issue.

Five years ago, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation by a voice vote that provided the support and direction for the country's first autism-specific research. That bill, the Combating Autism Act, included life-changing provisions relating to the diagnosis and treatment of persons with autism spectrum disorders, and expanded biomedical research on autism, including an essential focus on possible environmental causes.

With this funding, the Centers for Disease Control have been able to put together detailed surveillance of autism so that we have better data to use. Autism screening at well-baby checkups have become mainstream, and parents are better educated about the warning signs, along with the treatment options. Additionally, standards of care for those with an autism spectrum disorder have been developed for both physical and behavioral health where there had been none.

Early diagnoses and intervention for children with autism is utterly life changing. It can mean the difference between independence in the community and living in a communal home. It can mean the difference between speaking or being mute. And for many parents, it means peace of mind and a support network that would have been impossible without this initial investment in research on autism spectrum disorders.

I introduced this legislation with my good friend, Chris Smith, as part of a three-bill package. Those pieces of legislation would ensure that there are also services available to adults with autism, which I think is critical. It's my hope that in the future this body will have a conversation about the needs of adults living with autism, and that we will consider how best to provide for them so that everyone has a long, fulfilling and productive life.

But, for now, it is of grave importance that the House passes this reauthorization with the same overwhelming support as 5 years ago and that we can get this bill to the President's desk by the end of this month.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama, a valuable member of the Autism Caucus, for his words of support.

My good friend, Chris Smith, has joined us on the floor. Chris, you weren't here, I thanked you for your leadership, and it's good to see you.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

I want to thank my friend, Chris Smith, for his important words. I hope all Members were listening carefully because the clock is running.

Mr. Speaker, we anticipate maybe some people coming to the floor to speak, so at this time I will reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I first learned about autism when I was a young staffer in the Pennsylvania State senate. A gentleman by the name of Dan Torisky came into our office one day. His son, Eddie, had autism, and he had asked us to see what we could do at the State level to give him and his family some help. Eddie was a young man at that time. He's an adult now. He's in his mid-forties. A lot of people's idea of autism I think was from the movie ``Rain Man.'' That was about the only thing they knew about autism. It was something that people didn't understand and something that was frequently misdiagnosed.

When Chris and I decided to form this caucus over 10 years ago, one of the goals that we had was to bring education and awareness, not only to our colleagues, many of whom were not familiar with the disorder, but also to the public, and also to bring some attention to the researchers at NIH too, that there was something much bigger to this than people realized. It has borne fruit over the years. We've seen research dollars greatly increased at NIH.

I want to also echo what my friend, Chris, said about the parents' groups. This is really the strength of the autism community. It's not the Autism Caucus. It's not Chris Smith or Mike Doyle. It's really the parents of these children that formed the many different groups you see out there. Their grassroots effort really has grown this movement, brought attention to it, given it strength and brought us to where we are today.

We have a clock ticking. This act expires at the end of September. I know there's some concern over in the Senate with some of our colleagues about reauthorizing these specific bills. I hope that all of us will speak to our colleagues over in the Senate--I certainly intend to speak to mine--and stress the importance of continuing the great progress that's been made over these past 5 years. This is not a time for us to stop what we're doing and to pull support for this very, very important act.

I hope that we will pass this swiftly in the House of Representatives, and I hope all of us will use whatever influence we may have with our colleagues in the other body to see that they also get this reauthorized by the end of the month so that the President can sign it for all of the families out in America who are dealing with this disorder.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education Support Reauthorization Act, offered by my good friends, Mr. Pitts and Mr. Pallone. I know Mr. Pallone is on his way to the floor and will be speaking shortly. This critical legislation will reauthorize the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education program through 2016 to ensure that our children have access to the care they need and deserve, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill with unanimous support.

The original bipartisan program was enacted over a decade ago to provide children's hospitals across the country with the Federal support to implement and carry out necessary residency training programs. Last year alone, over 50 children's hospitals received funding to carry out these training programs. Today, over 40 percent of pediatricians and pediatric specialists are trained through the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education program. This program is vital to maintaining the pediatric workforce and ensuring children's access to the highest levels of pediatric care provided in this country.

The Children's Hospital GME program is a critical investment in our children's health, and I am proud today that we will vote to reauthorize this hugely successful program.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it appears the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is not here yet. His flight was late getting in.

Therefore, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Duquesne University School of Law, a widely respected institution of higher learning In Pennsylvania's 14th Congressional District.

The Duquesne University School of Law was founded in 1911. It was the first professional school added to Duquesne University, a private Catholic university which was established in 1878 by members of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit, often referred to as Spiritans.

The Duquesne University School of Law began as a night school with 12 students. Consistent with the Spiritan tradition, the school was a pioneer in providing legal education to the working-class, minorities, and women. It was designed to accommodate students' family and work obligations. Enrollment has increased dramatically over the last 100 years to the current total of 646 students, and the Duquesne University School of Law now offers several degrees in full-time and part-time programs offering clinics, practicums, and international study as well as the Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Law. It continues to offer flexible schedules to expand access for those who could otherwise not pursue a law degree.

The Duquesne University School of Law has embraced the globalization of law in the 21st century. It opened the first summer schools for American Law Students in Beijing, China in 1995 and the Vatican City State in 2001, as well as additional programs in Dublin, Ireland, and Cologne, Germany.

The law school encourages moral and ethical exploration through coursework offerings on the intersection between Law and Philosophy and between Law and different religions. The school's educational philosophy maintains that preparation for the legal profession requires the development of a special character, competency, and disposition.

Alumni of the Duquesne University School of Law make up over a third of membership of the Allegheny County Bar association, with over 7,200 alumni practicing in every field of law, in all 50 states, and in several foreign countries. Alumni serve at the local, state, and federal levels. Duquesne Law alumni have also served as judges of the United States Court of Appeals and the Federal District Courts.

As the Duquesne University School of Law celebrates its centennial anniversary, I want to congratulate its faculty, staff, students, alumnae, friends, and supporters and commend them on their many contributions to the community of Pittsburgh and to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans want deep spending cuts with no new revenues as the price of raising the debt limit. Some Republicans have downplayed the impact that defaulting on the national debt would have on our economy and our people, and most Republicans have downplayed the impact on average Americans of the budget cuts they're calling for. This doesn't come as a surprise, but what is surprising is how out of touch they are with mainstream Americans.

Most Americans say their biggest concern isn't government spending; it's jobs. But rather than pursue a real job-creation agenda, House Republicans have passed legislation that would actually slow the economy and kill American jobs. Their demand for even bigger spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling is the latest and greatest effort yet to kill middle class American jobs.

They say either we cut government spending deeper, or they're going to force us into default, which every economist agrees causes a deeper recession and throws hundreds of thousands of middle class Americans out of work.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for House Republicans to get a grip and offer an agenda that actually creates jobs.

Thank you. I want to thank my good friend, Joe Barton. It was a great game last night, not exactly an ``eking'' game. Cedric came

within five outs of pitching a no hitter, something I have never seen in the 17 years I have been involved in the game. But in addition to that, he had a group of men and women behind him that made every play when we needed to make them, had 15 hits and played almost error-free baseball--one error. When you can get away with making just one error in this game, good things are going to happen.

As you know, this is a best-of-five series, and we are currently in series 13. We had gone into the series with a 2-0 lead, so we needed one more victory to retire the Roll Call Trophy. Rather than string this thing out for too much longer, we decided to finish it last night.

Our guys played a great game, but the real winners last night were our charities, the Boys and Girls Club of Washington, D.C. and the Washington Literacy Council. We were able to raise a record amount of money for those organizations, over $150,000 for those groups that are doing really good work with our young kids in Washington, D.C. We had 7,100 people at the game, and I would venture to say that is a bigger attendance than the Nats get on some occasions. So it was a well- attended game.

Series 13, the coveted Roll Call Trophy has been retired finally by the Democratic Party. Congratulations.

But what have you done lately?

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Adams

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

I rise in opposition to this bill. I was on the committee back in 2007 when we first wrote the efficiency standards that Republicans are trying to repeal here today. The way I remember it, our current chairman, Mr. Upton, introduced the bill to set the standards. Our former House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, supported it, along with many Republicans. And, finally, President George W. Bush signed these standards into law.

In fact, if you look at the history behind consensus efficiency standard, you will see that this used to be something that we all agreed upon. Beginning with President Reagan in 1987, Congress and the White House have enacted Federal energy efficiency standards five times, each time with bipartisan support. These standards were developed as consensus agreements with manufacturers, energy efficiency advocates, and States.

There's more than 50 products on the market today that are covered by a variety of these Federal standards. Everything from dishwashers and refrigerators to traffic signals have become more efficient as a result of these Federal standards, saving the country energy and saving consumers money.

These standards have been in effect since 1987, have saved Americans about 3.6 quads of energy. If we continue with enacting Federal efficiency standards, we can save up to 6.1 quads of energy by 2030. That is more energy than was used in my State of Pennsylvania in 2008. The light bulb efficiency standards alone will save Pennsylvania 3.64 billion kilowatt hours of energy in a year. That means we'll save $465 million in Pennsylvania in just 1 year from these standards.

In Congress we don't always agree on much; but for the last 25 years, we have been able to agree on energy efficiency. And it's been good for the country and for American families and for the environment. So why would we wish to reverse this policy today? But you know, energy and cost savings aren't the only benefits from these standards.

Having lived in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, my whole life, I have seen how efficiency can revolutionize an industry and revitalize a city. In the seventies, I worked two summers at J & L steel mill on Pittsburgh's south side. The industry was doing well, and Pittsburgh was a company town. But in a few years, that industry came to a screeching halt as international competitors were making steel using new technologies and more efficient processes, allowing them to undercut the price of U.S. steel. But the steel industry didn't leave the United States, and it didn't leave Pittsburgh. It reinvented itself. It got smarter and leaner and more energy efficient.

U.S. steelmakers started using blast oxygen furnaces rather than old open hearth furnaces that used more energy. They started doing continuous casting rather than ingots and molds that required reheating. They started using waste heat recovery and energy monitoring and management technologies. As a result, the U.S. steel industry has reduced the amount of energy needed to produce a ton of steel by 33 percent since 1990.

The lighting industry has already begun to revolutionize, much like the industrial steel industry did back in the nineties. When the industry agreed to these efficiency standards in 2007, it was because they knew they could innovate and still be profitable by making the incandescent bulb, yes, colleagues, the incandescent bulb more efficient and developing new technologies like compact fluorescents and LED light bulbs. And even better, the lighting industry began making those bulbs right here in the United States of America. Even in Pennsylvania, Sylvania retooled a plant in St. Mary's, Pennsylvania, to make these incandescent light bulbs that meet the energy efficiency standards that we passed in 2007.

They are being made in the United States by United States steelworkers in Pennsylvania, and you can find them on your shelf at the grocery store or the hardware store. Or you can get these Philips bulbs, also incandescent light bulbs, colleagues. They meet the energy standards that were set in 2007.

Steelworkers are making the filaments in these bulbs in Bath, New York. In fact, United Steelworkers is opposing this bill and telling us at a time when Americans continue to experience downward financial pressures, energy-efficient light bulbs present an everyday solution to a much-needed cost savings.

But it's not just steelworkers that are benefiting. Light bulbs that meet these standards are being made all over the United States of America. In 2011, TCP, one of the world's largest makers of CFLs, is opening a new factory in Ohio.

I yield myself 30 additional seconds.

CFL is making a new factory in Ohio to meet the demand. Seven thousand U.S. jobs have been created by companies like Cree in North Carolina, Lighting Science Group in Florida, and Lighting Philips Company, the world's biggest lighting company, to produce the next generation of efficient LED light bulbs. GE recently invested $60 million to create a Global Center of Excellence for linear fluorescent lamp manufacturing in Bucyrus, Ohio, an action that will double the number of jobs there.

New innovation and energy efficiency has brought jobs to this country. This is not the time to repeal these standards.

United Steelworkers,

Washington, DC, July 11, 2011.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: Today, Congress is expected to vote on

the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act (HR 2417). On behalf

of the

850,000 members of the United Steelworkers (USW) union, I

urge you to vote ``No'' on this bill that would repeal the

energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that were enacted

under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of

2007.

The BULB Act would only serve to reverse the spirit of

ingenuity that has taken place among light bulb manufactures

since the passage of EISA. Rather than viewing the new

efficiency laws as a reason to halt production and close

their doors, domestic manufacturers, such as Osram Sylvania,

decided to retrofit their existing facilities in Wellsboro

and St. Mary's, Pennsylvania to produce energy efficient

Sylvania Super Saver halogen bulbs. USW members manufacture

the outer glass portion of the light bulbs at the Wellsboro

facility and assemble the bulbs at the St. Mary's facility.

Osram Sylvania's decision to change their business model

and use new technology to produce more energy efficient bulbs

works towards our nation's overall goal of reducing our green

house gas emissions, but also provides a tangible example of

family-sustaining clean energy manufacturing jobs in the U.S.

Additionally, these U.S.-made bulbs have been able to

successfully compete against foreign-made compact fluorescent

light (CFL) bulbs, which have dominated the market and rely

heavily on the use of mercury, which the Sylvania Super Saver

halogen bulbs do not contain.

Lastly, at a time when American's continue to experience

downward financial pressures, energy efficient light bulbs

present an every-day solution to much needed cost-savings. A

recent study conducted by the Appliance Standards Awareness

Project for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),

found that repealing the energy efficiency standards would

cause a seven percent or $85 increase in energy costs for the

average household.

Again, we urge you to vote ``No'' on the Bulb Act, and

instead to support the spirit of ingenuity, job creation and

preservation and energy-savings that have resulted from the

improved energy efficiency standards enacted in 2007.

Sincerely,

Holly R. Hart,

Assistant to the President,

Legislative Director.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Carnegie Mellon University professor Lester B. Lave, who passed away on May 9th at the age of 71.

Dr. Lave spent most of his career at CMU, where he distinguished himself as one of the world's most influential contributors to economics and environmental science. In addition to his title as University Professor, the highest distinction a faculty member can achieve at Carnegie Mellon, Dr. Lave served as the Harry B. and James H. Higgins Professor of Economics at the Tepper School of Business, director of the Green Design Initiative, and co-director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center.

In a career that spanned more than 40 years, Dr. Lave tackled some of the most important questions relating to health, safety, energy, and the environment. By applying principles from economics and risk analysis, he performed ground-breaking research on a wide range of topics including global warming, automobile and transportation safety, dam safety, and the environmental effects of fuel additives.

Dr. Lave first gained attention from scholars and policy-makers in the 1970's when he and Eugene Seskin published research showing that air pollution was linked to increased death rates in American cities. Lave and Seskin's work was highly controversial. But it was supported by further research, and we now know that approximately 1 percent of all deaths in the United States stem from small-particle air pollution. This research later served as a basis for EPA clean air regulations.

Among other significant studies he performed throughout his career, Dr. Lave and his colleagues showed in the 1990's that electric cars run on lead-based batteries were actually more harmful to the environment than cars that burned leaded gasoline. In recent years, his work focused on green design and improving the electricity system. Along with his colleagues, he helped found the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, which is the largest electric power research group of its kind.

In addition to teaching and researching at CMU, Dr. Lave was a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. In 1982, he was elected to the Institute of Medicine, and in 1985, he was named president of the Society for Risk Analysis. Dr. Lave served on and chaired numerous committees of the National Academies, where he most recently oversaw a study entitled ``Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States.''

As a CMU professor, Dr. Lave served as the economics department chair for eight years and served as the primary mentor to 40 doctoral students.

Dr. Lave is remembered by his colleagues and students as a caring teacher and untiring researcher who was dedicated to objective, thorough analysis. He should be remembered by this nation as a talented researcher whose body of work has improved U.S. public policy markedly and will continue to do so for years to come.

I want to take this opportunity to express both my sincere admiration for Dr. Lave and my condolences to his wife, Judith, and his two children, Jonathan and Tamara.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce several milestones in southwestern Pennsylvania.

On June 7, the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank will celebrate its 30th anniversary and observe Hunger Awareness Day. On that day, the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank will also celebrate the important work done by its co-founder and CEO, Joyce Rothermel, who is retiring after 25 years.

Hunger is a widespread problem that affects millions of households across the United States. In 2009, one out of every eight Americans required emergency food assistance, and in 2010, over 40 million people relied on Food Stamps for their daily meals. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, approximately 17 million of the nation's hungry are children. In Pennsylvania, roughly one in seven people are not getting enough to eat.

Hunger has a drastic effect on the health of those who suffer from it. Children from food-insecure households are more likely to fall behind in school, show signs of depression, exhibit cognitive disabilities and behavioral problems, and are more likely to be hospitalized with preventable illnesses. Similarly, hungry seniors are also more likely to suffer from poor health compared to food-secure seniors.

That's why it's so important to raise public awareness about the problem of hunger our nation faces today with events like Hunger Awareness Day. It's essential that every community across the country take action to eradicate the scourge of hunger.

I'm proud to say that in our region, a lot of our friends and neighbors have stepped up to meet this challenge. The Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank has tirelessly fought hunger in southwestern Pennsylvania for the past 30 years. With the help of more than 400 affiliate food banks and member agencies, the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank is able to serve more than 122,000 hungry people each month.

The Food Bank has done an outstanding job at providing much-needed healthy food to the hungry of southwestern Pennsylvania. During fiscal year 2009-2010, it distributed more than 22 million pounds of food throughout 11 counties. Despite declining food donations nationwide, the Food Bank has managed to supply more than 50 percent of the food offered by local soup kitchens, 87 percent of the food distributed by the region's food pantries, and 43 percent of the food distributed by local shelters in recent years. I would like to commend the Food Bank for the fantastic work it has done on behalf of southwestern Pennsylvania.

Much of the Food Bank's success can be traced to the work of one person--Joyce Rothermel, who co-founded the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank in 1980 and became its CEO in 1987.

During her 25 year tenure, Joyce oversaw the growth of the Food Bank into one of the most respected non-profit groups in the nation. Among other honors, the Food Bank has won awards from America's Second Harvest, received a four-star rating from Charity Navigator, and obtained the Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organization's Standards of Excellence Certification under Joyce's leadership.

This year, in recognition of her leadership and service, Joyce received both the Dick Goebel Public Service Award from Feeding America and the John E. McGrady Award from the Catholic Youth Association of Pittsburgh. In past years, Joyce's commitment to service has been recognized by a variety of organizations, including the YWCA, the Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center, the Public Relations Society of America, and the United Nations Association.

I can add from personal experience that Joyce has been an effective and tireless advocate on hunger issues with the region's Congressional delegation as well. My staff and I have worked closely with Joyce over many years to support and improve federal anti-hunger programs. It was always a pleasure to work with her, and we will miss her.

I want to commend Joyce Rothermel for her decades of commitment to eliminating hunger in the greater Pittsburgh community, and I want to congratulate her on the beginning of her much-deserved retirement. And in closing, I want to express my sincere appreciation to the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank for the extraordinary work it has done on behalf of the people of southwestern Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the artistic ability of a young woman from my Congressional District, Noel Peterson from the Pittsburgh High School for the Creative and Performing Arts. Ms. Peterson is the winner of the 2011 14th Congressional District of Pennsylvania's High School Art Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery.'' Ms. Peterson's artwork, a charcoal drawing entitled ``Organization,'' was selected from a number of outstanding entries to this year's competition.

In fact, over 70 works from fifteen different schools in Pennsylvania's 14th Congressional District were submitted to our panel of respected local artists. It's a real tribute to her skill and vision that her work was chosen as the winner of this year's competition. I am certain that Ms. Peterson's family is proud of her artistic talents and this impressive accomplishment.

Ms. Peterson's artwork will represent the 14th Congressional District of Pennsylvania in the national exhibit of high school students' artwork that will be displayed in the United States Capitol over the coming year. I encourage my colleagues as well as any visitor to Capitol Hill to view Ms. Peterson's artwork, along with the winning entries from the high school art contests held in other Congressional Districts, which will be on display in the Capitol tunnel. It is amazing to walk through this corridor and see the interpretation of life through the eyes of these young artists from all across our country.

Stephanie Taylor from South Allegheny High School was awarded second place for her Acrylic on Canvas ``Rocky.'' Beth Gonzales from West Mifflin High School received third place for her self-portrait in charcoal. Alaina Schuster from Carlynton High School was awarded fourth place for her painting ``Berries.'' Jessica Clair from Penn Hills was given fifth place for her acrylic painting ``Portrait of a Misfit.''

In addition, Honorable Mention Awards were presented to works by Nicole Murphy from Carlynton High School, Cody Atkins from East Allegheny High School, Julianna Rinaldo from the Ellis School, Olivia Pasquarelli from Montour High School, Alexandra Fawcett from Penn Hills High School, Alesia Miller from Penn Hills High School, Christopher Winston from Pittsburgh Allderdice High School, Andrew Fusia from Riverview High School, Ethan Lyons from Serra Catholic High School, Brandi Krivansky from South Allegheny High School, Sara Savage from Woodland Hills High School, and Natalie Kerrigan from West Mifflin High School, who entered two mixed media works in the competition and received Honorable Mention awards for both of them.

I would like to recognize all of the participants in this year's 14th Congressional District High School Art Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery:'' from the Pittsburgh High School for the Creative and Performing Arts, Robert Almond, Sarah Axtell, David Becinski, Zoe Capcara, Noel Peterson, and Nicolette Santercangelo; from Carlynton, Nicole Murphy and Alaina Schuster; from East Allegheny

High School, Cody Atkins and Tyler Guger; from The Ellis School, Rachel Cooper, Shae LaPlace, Tessa McArdle, Hannah Mellor, Julianna Rinaldo, and Emilia Whitmer; from Montour High School, Chloe Carlini, Claire Crowley, Jenna Luche, Harley Murphy, Olivia Pasquarelli, and Rourke Stubna; from Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, Stefano Ceccarelli, Joseph David Goltz, Andrea Laffey, and Emma Mallick; from Penn Hills High School, Jessica Clair, Nicolette Deighan, Alexandra Fawcett, Selena Ford, Alesia Miller, and Chris Schwanke; from Pittsburgh Allderdice High School, Jeremy Saulsbury, Bowen Schmitt, Ester Turpini, Christopher Winston, and William A. Worth; from Riverview High School, Amanda Alcorn, Paige Condon, Victoria DiDominico, Andrew Fusia, Ashley Reid, and Heather Tabacchi; from Serra Catholic, Garrett Hudson, Ethan Lyons, Andrew Pricener, Paige Spang, and Olivia Saccameno; from South Allegheny High School, Alexis Carr, Brandi Krivansky, Megan Matejcic, Brianna Marie Smith, and Stephanie Taylor; from Sto-Rox High School, Amanda Anderson, Maxine Blackwell, Natalie Gamble, DeArra Linea Moore, Elizabeth Thornton, and Dane Worms; from Trinity Christian School, Rebekah Garard; from West Mifflin High School, Victoria Cooper, Chelsey Earnest, Beth Gonzales, Natalie Kerrigan, and Maggie Morgans; and from Woodland Hills High School, Jasmine Baldridge, Donovan Jones, Rachel Pampino, Sara Savage, and Kenny Thomas.

I would like to thank these impressive young artists for allowing us to share and celebrate their talents, imagination, and creativity. The efforts of these students in expressing themselves in a powerful and positive manner are no less than spectacular.

I hope that all of these individuals continue to utilize their artistic talents, and I wish them all the best of luck in their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this resolution. If enacted, it will strip the Federal Communications Commission of its authority to police the most egregious conduct of broadband providers, and it would permit those providers to block consumers' access to lawful Web sites of their choice.

The FCC's open Internet rule makes two simple promises: To consumers, that we can visit any legal Web site and use any online service on any device we want; to innovators, that they don't have to ask permission from the government or get shaken down by Internet access providers when they come up with a new Web site, device, or service. That's it. That isn't regulating the Internet. No one's proposing to regulate Internet content. But Internet access providers have always lived with basic rules of the road. No blocking was chief among them.

Those basic rules of the road are what turned the Internet into the economic engine that it is today. But in our hearings on this bill, we learned that some broadband providers want the right to block what you can see. I'll tell you what I don't want. I don't want to live in a country where it's legal to block Web sites like it is in Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and in other oppressive regimes.

Why can't we have a regulation that protects your constituents' Internet freedom? What's the harm in ensuring that no one can block your constituents' ability to access the Web sites they want to visit?

I offered an amendment to this bill that simply tried to ensure that if this resolution of disapproval that we are considering today is enacted into law, broadband providers would not be able to block or interfere with consumers' access to lawful Web sites. But the way this resolution is written, we are not allowed to offer perfecting amendments.

You know, we used to be able to debate net neutrality in a levelheaded way. The no blocking principle was broadly accepted since it was included in the FCC's 2005 Internet Policy Statement, then controlled by Republicans. That principle has garnered support from both Democratic and Republican FCC Commissioners. Chairman Michael Powell stated at the time that consumers have come to be able to expect to go where they want on high-speed connections. And this was also part of the Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 authored by Chairman Barton at that time. Most of my Republican colleagues who were there voted in favor of the bill.

To close, this resolution gives the green light to broadband providers to block anything, even legal content on the Internet, just like they do in Iran. I think consumers should have the choice to go where they want to go and to do what they want to do on the Internet. That's why my colleagues should oppose this legislation.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, I sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee and on the Energy and Power Subcommittee, which has primary jurisdiction of H.R. 910. As such, I have been at several hearings on this bill where my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have claimed that the pending EPA regulations on greenhouse gases will cause our industries to pack up and move overseas, taking with them our jobs and our carbon emissions.

At a committee hearing on this bill held in March of this year, our chairman told us, ``We live in a global economy with global competition, and nations like China absolutely have no intention of similarly burdening their industries. Manufacturing will leave this country unless the EPA is stopped.''

Madam Chair, unfortunately, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle have forgotten to check with the Chinese. Just 2 days ago, a report came out saying China to Tax Energy Usage of Energy-Intensive Industries. The report says that China will impose a tax on energy usage of eight industrial sectors, including iron and steel, aluminum and cement. Xie Zhenhua, vice chairman of National Development and Reform, said that China has launched pilot carbon emission trading schemes in some of their provinces. So much for this idea that all these jobs are going to China because there's no taxing there or that they're not looking at a trading scheme.

While I dispute the claims of my colleagues that China has no intention of addressing climate change, what I am more concerned about is the varying claims that these regulations will ship jobs overseas. What we have as an amendment here is to address that very question: Are these industries here in America that utilize energy-intensive processes and have special trade pressures, what will the effect of these regulations be on those types of industries?

In the last Congress, I worked with Congressman Inslee to develop and address job and carbon leakage issues when we did the American Clean Energy Security Act. We were able to develop a fair system of distributing these allowances. This amendment proposes to do the same thing.

Thank you.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentleman that maybe he wasn't here when I just read the fact that China is imposing a tax on their industries, is looking at cap-and- trade.

I would also say to the gentleman who says why we want a study for a bill that is going to abolish these regulations, your bill is never going to become law. This bill has a veto threat. We need to do a study to see what the implications are on our industries.

I would now like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains on both sides?

I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, Jay Inslee.

I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Chair, let me just close by saying to my colleagues that all we're asking for is to put some good data behind this. Let's study it. Let's have the EPA take a look at this. Let's see what the effects are on our energy-intensive industries, because this is an issue we're going to have to deal with eventually, and we want to have good data behind it. Let's not have all the stories be anecdotal. Let's have the agency study this, and let's work together to find solutions to protect our industries while we clean up our environment for our kids and our grandkids.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Girls of Steel robotics team on winning the Rookie All-Star Award at the 2011 Pittsburgh Regional F.I.R.S.T. Robotics Competition held on March 12th and 13th.

Because of their hard work and impressive performance, the team has been invited to compete at the F.I.R.S.T. Championship in St. Louis in April. The championship is the final and largest competition of the robotics season and features teams from across the world.

F.I.R.S.T., which stands for ``For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology,'' is an organization dedicated to introducing our youth to the world of science and technology. This year alone, approximately 250,000 students are gaining practical, team-based engineering experiences by participating in F.I.R.S.T.

As a co-chair of the Congressional Robotics Caucus, I think competitions such as these are outstanding tools for getting students interested in careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. I believe our nation's future economic growth and prosperity depends upon getting young people interested and engaged in scientific pursuits, and I want to commend organizations like F.I.R.S.T. for the important work they do in that regard.

The Girls of Steel team is made up of 24 young women from high schools in and around the Pittsburgh area. In their first year of competition, and using a robot they designed and built in only six weeks, the girls went up against 39 other teams from across the United States and Canada. In this regional competition, teams were challenged to construct robots that could place tubes on elevated pegs. After finishing this first part of the task, the robots were required to deploy smaller robots capable of climbing to the top of a 10-foot pole. Upon reaching the top, the ``minibots'' would set off sensors to signal completion of the task. The Girls of Steel performed well in the qualification round, and their success continued throughout the seeding and elimination rounds of the competition.

In recognition of their hard work, intelligence, and teamwork, I want to mention each of these inspiring young ladies by name. They are Grace Handler, Calista Frederick-Jaskiewicz, Hallie Goldstein, Nila Ravi, Elizabeth Kysel, Rachel Lischy, Olivia Parks, Bryce Volk, Jaden Barney, Maya Chandrasekaran, Julia DiPietro, Campbell Konrad, Rachel Round, Jordyn Zechender, Naoka Gunawardena, Dakota Calvert, Jeannette Melanie Young, Tayler Wright, Kathryn Hendrickson, Pragna Mannam, Anna Maria Sicenica, Dahee Kim, Zhimi Ding, and Xinchao Li.

I also want to express my appreciation to the Carnegie Mellon University Field Robotics Center, which has mentored the Girls of Steel. As a result of their efforts, more young women are gaining real- world technological experiences which will certainly aid them in the future.

I wish the Girls of Steel the best of luck as they head to St. Louis to compete this April, and I hope for their continual success.