Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today the House Republicans want to eliminate funding for NPR, some because they think the government shouldn't operate a news service and some because they think the reporting is biased. I believe they're wrong on both counts.

Public radio plays an important role in our communities as a source of news and entertainment. My colleagues should consider the studies that show that NPR listeners are more aware of indisputable facts than viewers and listeners of most other news sources.

Opponents of NPR hold up a video hit piece to show that NPR is biased. Even Glenn Beck's Web site, The Blaze, explains that the video is neither fair nor balanced, how it's basically a lie.

And my colleagues should consider the fact that many NPR programs have nothing to do with news or politics. Where's the bias in ``Car Talk''? There might be a bias against Pintos or Pacers, but not a political bias. Where's the political bias in music broadcasts? There might be a bias against Prokofiev, but not a political bias.

Even so, if this bill were simply to defund NPR's direct public contribution, then at least it would only impact the organization with the alleged political bias, which is, again, based on a lie. But this bill goes further. It hurts local public radio stations and tens of millions of listeners from across the country.

If this bill is enacted, communities across the country will be denied programming that their residents want. Whatever happened to the philosophy that more choice is better?

My colleagues, this is bad public policy. This is a terrible bill. This is a terrible waste of our time, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the Walden amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the FCC's Open Internet Order brings certainty and clarity to a debate that has raged on for almost a decade, allowing Internet service providers as well as edge and content providers to fully focus on broadband investment, innovation, and other pressing business matters. In fact, broadband providers like AT&T, Time Warner and Comcast have all expressed support for the rules and have indicated that the FCC has achieved a balanced result. Wall Street investment analysts have also concluded that the FCC's Open Internet Order removed any regulatory overhang for telecom and cable companies and reflected a ``light touch'' version of regulation that will not hinder growth and innovation.

At the end of the day, the FCC's rules simply maintain the status quo principles that most broadband providers have already embraced. The rules preserve a number of existing business models for broadband providers to pursue as well as paving the way for new innovative offerings. Contrary to the claims by opponents of the FCC, these high level ``rules of the road'' do not allow the agency to micromanage broadband providers. They balance clarity with flexibility. And they don't require broadband providers to seek permission from the commission before deploying a network management practice. In fact, the rules specifically recognize the unique network management challenges across different platforms and afford broadband providers the latitude they need to manage their networks effectively.

Some opponents of the FCC argue that we don't need any rules in this area because antitrust laws are sufficient. But antitrust remedies occur after harm occurs. These rules, in contrast, allow companies and innovators regulatory certainty, a key component that allows businesses to thrive.

Mr. Chairman, the FCC's open Internet rules are just these three simple promises:

One to consumers--that we can visit any Web site we want, using any service we want, on any device we want.

Two for innovators--that they can create new tools without getting permission from the government or the company that the consumers use to get online.

Three--that we provide a cop on the beat to make sure that both sides are doing what they're supposed to and to be a neutral arbitrator. That's all this does.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It represents bad process and bad policy, and it should be rejected.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Offered By: Mr. Doyle

Amendment No. 439: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

Day after day, new studies are showing just what's at stake in this debate over health care reform. The Department of Health and Human Services released a staggering report stating that up to 129 million Americans with preexisting medical conditions could lose their newly enacted protection from insurance company discrimination. The CBO has reported that this Republican repeal bill would add $230 billion to the Federal debt. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid found that repealing health care reform would reduce the solvency of the Medicare program by 12 years.

Repeal of last year's health care reforms would raise insurance costs for people in my home district of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and across the country, whether they are small business owners, retirees, working Americans, or recent college graduates. Health care reform took power away from the insurance companies and gave it back to the American consumers. Repeal of this reform would allow private health insurance companies to go back to the practice of cherry-picking low-risk customers and sticking it to the rest of us. What's more, it would increase prescription drug costs for seniors who fall into the doughnut hole, raising the average cost of prescription drugs for these seniors by over $500 this year and by over $3,000 in 2020.

In a nutshell, the Republican repeal means this: children with preexisting conditions denied coverage; young people up to age 26 can't stay on their parents' plans; pregnant women and breast and prostate cancer patients could be thrown off their insurance policies; seniors will pay more for their drugs; the deficit will increase by $230 billion; small businesses pay higher taxes.

That doesn't sound very good to me. Repeal helps no one, no one but the insurance industry. I adamantly oppose this effort to repeal this health care reform bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3874) to amend the Safe Drinking Act to reduce lead in drinking water.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I shall consume.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to manage consideration of S. 3874, the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. This is the Senate companion to Ms. Eshoo's bill, the Get the Lead Out Act. This bill will update the national lead content standard to nearly eradicate lead in faucets and fixtures which currently contribute up to 20 percent of human lead exposure, according to the EPA.

In a 21st century America, we have a responsibility to do more to protect our children and families against the lead exposure acquired through plumbing systems. The Safe Drinking Water Act, which determines the national lead content standards, currently allows up to 8 percent lead content for faucets and other plumbing fixtures and limits the amount of lead that can leach from plumbing into drinking water.

But health studies have concluded that much smaller amounts of lead exposure can have serious impacts on children and adults, including kidney disease, reduced IQ, hypertension, hearing loss, and brain damage. States have recognized this threat, and in 2006, California enacted the toughest lead content standard for drinking water faucets, fittings, and plumbing systems anywhere in the world. Since then, Vermont and Maryland have also adopted identical laws, and the District of Columbia and Virginia are considering similar legislation.

This bill mirrors the California legislation and will provide for a consistent and effective national standard to ensure that no one will be exposed to a serious health threat which can easily be avoided. This legislation has garnered the support of State health officials, numerous children's health organizations, prominent national environmental organizations, local governments, scientific associations, and national drinking water associations. The Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, the association that represents all major faucet companies and other manufacturers of drinking water plumbing fittings, also supports this legislation.

On December 16, this bill passed the Senate unanimously with bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to vote for this critical bill in the House today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend--and he is my good friend--that the bill passed unanimously in the Senate. I know he likes to invoke Senator Boxer's name a lot. But the fact of the matter is, every Republican and every Democrat in the United States Senate supported this bill.

I would like to make a couple of points. He talks about the lead in the service lines. And that's true, utility companies--and we have literally dozens of utilities that are in support of this bill--are already constantly making efforts to get lead out of their lines. What we are trying to do is not to make that an exercise in futility by allowing the faucets to return the lead into the lines that they are working so hard to take out.

We talk about preemption. Right now, the standard is 8 percent, so that's a maximum. And the gentleman is correct: a lot of States have gone under that 8 percent limit. But the new standard that we are proposing, the 0.25 percent, is state of the art. That is about as low as you can get it, based on the technology that we have available today. So in effect, the idea that States would somehow be able to preempt and go below that, it just isn't possible as we speak today. So it sort of deals with the preemption issue.

The bill doesn't require people to buy replacements. No one is forced to replace their faucets. And lastly, and dealing with the issue of cost, I have a letter from the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute, and I would like to quote from it. In the one paragraph dealing with cost, it says: ``It is safe to say that this one-time cost for faucet manufacturers will not be anywhere in the magnitude of `hundreds of millions of dollars' as set forth in the House report for H.R. 5320, the AQUA bill. Unfortunately, the faucet industry source for those numbers failed to vet the calculations with the industry representatives prior to providing the estimate to CBO. We find those numbers to be unreliable and greatly exaggerated.''

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

So when you put this all together and you see that we have a piece of legislation here which passed the Senate unanimously, and we have an opportunity to set a national standard which is state of the art with the technology that we have today, at a cost that the industry has said is minimal, and many are already complying with, it seems that it would be a shame to let this opportunity pass to protect the health of millions of Americans by making changes that are not onerous on the industry by their own letter, and they endorse the bill and it had unanimous support in the Senate. I would hope that my colleagues in the House will see fit, in a bipartisan fashion, to do this for Americans, make people more safe, improve the quality of water that Americans drink, and do so at a cost that is not onerous to the public or the industry.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I would just say to my friend that Senator Inhofe and Senator Alexander are cosponsors of this bill. I think those two gentlemen, very conservative gentlemen, I think my friend would agree, have looked at the bill and are cosponsors of the bill. I would also say to my friend that I would be happy to share a copy of my letter from the Plumbing Manufacturers Institute with him if he would like to share a letter that he has from anyone who contradicts this. I believe we have shared this letter with your staff, and I hope you would look it over.

I would say to the gentleman and my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I think we

should try to do the best we can do for the American people when it comes to their health. It is true that a handful of States have already adopted lower standards, but it is just a handful of States. We have 50 States, and over 40 still have not done this. So I think it is important we set a national standard. This will in effect set a national standard which uses the best technologies available to get us as low as we can based on what we know today.

The industry has said that we can do this at minimal cost to the industry. We force no individual to buy replacements. This is something people can choose to do if they want to. I think most families will take advantage of this. For the average faucet, if you look at a faucet that is about $85, and everyone knows when you go into a store, you can buy faucets that cost $500, and you can buy faucets that cost $30 or $40, or anywhere in between. But if you look at the average, which is around $80, what we are talking about is somewhere between $1.70 extra on a faucet, so we are not talking about a big cost.

As I said, I have the industry letter, which I am happy to share with you, saying that they think that it is a good thing, too.

So I would just say to my colleagues, let's do the best we can for all of America. Sure, a handful of States have already taken the lead and have gone further.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

When people's health and safety is involved, we should never skimp on that. If we are going to err, let's err on the side of doing the most we can do based on the technology we have with a bill that does not put any onerous burden on manufacturers, by their own statements, and which many dozens of organizations and utility companies support and that has the support of conservative Senators, cosponsors like Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma and Senator Alexander of Tennessee, and a unanimous vote in the Senate. Let's have a unanimous vote here in the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would just say to my friend, the one thing I would agree with my friend on is that the House of Representatives is not the United States Senate. I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I would also say to my friend, and I believe he may not have been present that day, but on May 26 of this year, we had a vote in committee on this bill, and Representative Barton voted for this bill in committee as part of our drinking water bill. So did 18 other Republicans. So the bill passed our committee with 45 members voting in favor.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Reclaiming my time, that bill was the companion bill here in the House, which was the same as the Boxer bill. It was Ms. Eshoo's bill, which passed the committee 45-1, with 18 Republicans supporting it, including Chairman Barton, who is my dear friend.

So I would just say to my friend that I would be more concerned with someone coming up to a town hall meeting to me and asking me why we haven't done everything we could to get lead out of drinking water. The standard is 8 percent in my State; to my knowledge, we don't have a lower standard. So I certainly appreciate legislation like this which sets the lowest standard we can attain with the technology we have and do so in a way that's not onerous to either the public or the manufacturers who support this bill.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to thank my friend for this debate. I would say to my friend that this bill is identical to the bill that we had in the House. It is an identical bill. It is identical in portion. It is not the entire bill that we had in the House, but this portion of the bill is identical to the bill that we had in the House.

I would hope my colleagues would join our colleagues in the Senate in supporting this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill

(H.R. 6533) to implement the recommendations of the Federal Communications Commission report to the Congress regarding low-power FM service, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Boucher, and to let Mr. Boucher know that it has been a privilege to work with him during our years together on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and especially during the 2 years he served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and of the Subcommittee on Communications Technology and the Internet. He has been a great colleague and partner in legislation and a great friend, and I want to wish Chairman Boucher only the best in his next steps.

I also want to thank Chairman Waxman for strongly supporting this bill that will give local communities across this country access to their airwaves. I am grateful for the support that this bill has from both sides of the aisle, from myself, the former vice chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, to the future vice chairman of the Communications Subcommittee, this bill's lead cosponsor and my good friend, Lee Terry from Omaha.

We have been working together to bring local community-oriented radio to more cities, counties, and neighborhoods across the country for 10 years now, and I would say to my friend that I think we are finally on the last leg of this journey.

This bill will allow churches, schools, neighborhood groups, and others to put community-oriented programming on the air, and it will help first responders provide those communities with critical information in times of natural disasters and other emergencies.

You see, when the Federal Communications Commission created the Low Power FM radio service, they sought to create opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow local schools, churches, and other community-based organizations to provide programming that is responsive to local community needs and interests. Congress, however, passed the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act in 2000, and many of those organizations were prevented from communicating to their members, supporters, and residents on the FM radio dial. That bill called for a field study performed by the MITRE Corporation, and for the FCC to recommend to us what we should do.

In 2004, on a unanimous bipartisan basis, the Federal Communications Commission issued a report to Congress which stated that, ``Congress should readdress this issue and modify the statute to eliminate the third adjacent channel distant separation requirements for LPFM stations.''

For a second time, in November of 2007, and for a third time, again, in September 2009, all five FCC Commissioners agreed that Congress should lift the restriction on LPFM stations and allow them to license new stations in more communities. The bill we have under debate today, the Local Community Radio Act of 2009, does just that.

When they are allowed to exist under current law, LPFM stations have proven to be a vital source of information during local or national emergencies. And these stations promote the arts and education from religious organizations, community groups, organizations promoting literacy, and many other civically oriented organizations; stations like:

KOCZ in Opelousas, Louisiana, which is operated by the Southern Development Foundation, a group active in the African American community. The station broadcasts public affairs shows, religious programing, hip-hop and zydeco music 24 hours a day. Zydeco music is central to the cultural heritage of the Acadiana region but had mostly disappeared from the airwaves dominated by commercial radio; or

WRFR in Rockland, Maine, which broadcasts talk and call-in shows on issues important to the community on a variety of things. Though six other stations have their transmitters in the station's home in Knox County, WRFR is the only station that originates its programming there; and

WQRZ in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, which remained on the air during Hurricane Katrina and served as the Emergency Operations Center for Hancock County during the worst storm there in a century.

But Congress has to act on the Commission's recommendations; otherwise, similar stations are prevented from operating in communities across America, communities like mine, which are too large to have any slots for any LPFM stations at 4th adjacent, but could fit several at 3rd.

But you don't have to take my word for it--every FCC Commissioner since 2003 has vouched for this--or the MITRE Corporation's outside study's word for it either. We all know this is going to work because it already works.

Currently, large commercial and noncommercial FM stations duplicate and extend their signals on these same 3rd adjacent channels that the FCC wants to also make available to new noncommercial stations.

This bill has broad support, as evidenced in these letters from almost a dozen leaders, from Catholic and Protestant faiths like the United Church of Christ and the National Association of Evangelicals; a letter from two dozen national and local public interests, civil rights, local groups; and another letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and, finally, this letter from the National Federation of Community Broadcasters and the Prometheus Radio Project, all of whom support this bill.

Exactly a year and a day ago, the House passed an earlier version of this legislation, H.R. 4711, a fine bill, but the broadcasters' concerns kept it bottled up in the Senate all year.

I am pleased to tell you that at the 11th hour, in the nick of time the various stakeholders were able to reach an agreement over the disputed language, and all of the Senate holds have been lifted.

This version of the bill was supported by everyone with a stake in broadcasting: Small noncommercial stations, big noncommercial stations like NPR, big commercial stations like the National Association of Broadcasters. This bill deserves my colleagues' support, unanimous support, as well.

The time has finally come for Congress to rewrite this law. The time has come to make the airwaves available to the people they serve. As I said a year ago, the time has come to bring low power to the people.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for support of this legislation.

List of Organizations That Sent Letters of Support

Director--California Indian Heritage Council (No PDF),

Association of California Water Agencies, Wateruse

Association, American Water Works Association, Association of

Metropolitan Water Agencies, La Clinica de La Raza, A

Community Voice Louisiana, Nancy Skinner, Assemblywoman for

the 14th District, National Resource Defense Council,

California Safe Schools (no PDF).

Planning and Conservation League, Council of the District

of Columbia, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,

California Public Health Association, Environmental Defense

Fund, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Environmental

Justice Coalition for Water, California Rural Legal

Assistance Foundation, Community Water Center, Southern

California Watershed Alliance.

Clean Water Action, Urban Semillas, Friends of the River,

Institute for Socio-Economic Justice, Planning and

Conservation League, North Richmond Shoreline Open Space

Alliance, California League of Conservation Voters,

California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health,

San Jerardo Co-Op Inc, Karuk Tribe.

Sierra Club, Consumer Union, Contra Costa Water District,

Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Environmental Defense Fund,

Ellen Corbett, 10th Senate District, Planning and

Conservation League (second one), PMI, Vermont PRIG, and

Action Now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to thank my friend for his support of the bill. I know he is looking forward to being able to listen to his favorite hip hop music on his favorite low power FM station in Florida.

This has been a long journey. We have tried earnestly to address all of the concerns that the broadcasters have, and there were many at times. But I think we finally reached a point where we all agree, broadcasters, commercial and noncommercial, that we now have a process in place that protects their interests and their concerns and allows local communities now to have this valuable resource.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I just want to share with my colleagues, we have been waiting. We were told this letter was en route, and it has arrived. Just for the record, this is the letter from the National Association of Broadcasters which was addressed to myself and Mr. Terry informing us both that they are now in support of this bill, that they appreciate the work that our staffs have done with them, along with the Senate cosponsor, and that they support the bill.

Another piece of good news. CBO has scored this bill. It has no budgetary impact. The CBO score is zero. Another piece of good news for my colleagues who are concerned about cost.

Last, I think it is only fair that we recognize that a lot of people have worked very, very hard on this bill. I would be remiss personally if I didn't thank Kenneth DeGraff, who staffs me on the Telecom Subcommittee, who has put his heart and soul into this legislation and is more responsible than anybody in my office for seeing this day come today.

Also from the Prometheus Radio Project, Pete Tridish; Cheryl Leanza from the United Church of Christ; Michael Daum with Senator Cantwell's office; Lee Dunn with Senator McCain's office. There have been many, many people who have worked hard. I know that Lee Terry, his staff too has worked very hard on this issue, and that all of our staffs deserve credit. They are the unsung heroes behind the scenes that do all the work. Brad Schweer with Lee Terry's office has been just great on this too.

So I want to thank my colleagues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this bill passed unanimously in the House of Representatives when it was H.R. 1147. This bill has broad bipartisan support.

I want to thank all of my colleagues for their work, and I would hope that we could have a unanimous vote today on the House floor when the bill is brought up.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Chairman Waxman, Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Joe Barton and Representative Shimkus, and my good friend and colleague, Chris Smith, who for so many years has joined with me as we tried to work on behalf of families who are dealing with this every day of their lives.

You know, as many of you know, autism has been the primary focus of my time here in Congress. Even though there is still much we don't know, in just the time that I've been here, we have seen light years' worth of improved understanding of the condition. One of the most important things we have learned is that early intervention works. That's why I have always appreciated that Chairman Waxman and Chairman Pallone have worked with me during health care reform in making sure that plans in the exchange have included needed behavioral health benefits.

Among the many items that the House passed in our health reform bill that the Senate did not was a services training and research initiative for children and adults with autism, so we decided to introduce it as a standalone bill, H.R. 5756, the Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide, or TRAIN Act. I am glad that it is on the House floor today.

Individuals on the autism spectrum often need assistance in the areas of comprehensive early intervention,

health, recreation, job training, employment, housing, transportation, and early, primary, secondary, and postsecondary education. With access to and assistance with these types of services and supports, individuals on the autism spectrum can live rich, full and productive lives. We know that services for youth who are on the autism spectrum and who are transitioning to adulthood are an especially pressing need.

Thanks to the reports from the GAO, we also know that there is a critical shortage of appropriately trained personnel across numerous important disciplines who can provide the services and supports to children and adults with autism spectrum disorders and related developmental disabilities and to their families. The bill, the TRAIN Act, will help this. This bill will help practicing professionals, as well as those in training, to become professionals, to get the most up- to-date practices, and to be informed by the most current research findings.

There is an urgent need to translate current and future research results into effective practices that can be implemented to support children and adults with autism spectrum disorders and related disabilities, including early intervention in preschool programs, in child care, in community schools, to health providers, to employment sites, in community living, and to first responders. This bill will do that, too.

I think it is important to note for my colleagues and I want them to know we are not re-creating the wheel. The bill is based on expanding and enhancing the network of University Centers of Excellence on developmental disabilities, known as Yoo-Seds. My colleagues should know that the bill helps minority-serving institutions gain the skillsets and resources to work with and to serve currently underserved populations. People like NFL star Rodney Peete's wife, Holly Robinson Peete, have helped others understand that autism doesn't know race and can affect any family.

You should also know that this bill is supported by groups like Autism Speaks, the Autism Society of America, self-advocates from the Autism Self-Advocate Network, and many other organizations. For those reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Before I forget, I would like to thank Anne Morris with Chairman Waxman, Emily Gibbons with Chairman Pallone, and Kenneth DeGraff on my staff for their hard work on this bill.

Thank you again, Chairman Pallone. I hope you and I can continue to work on other items on the autism agenda, including a reauthorization of the CAA law.

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I was unavoidably detained by a medical situation and, consequently, missed the vote to approve the final version of H.R. 4213, the Unemployment Compensation Act Extension of 2010, earlier this afternoon.

I want to state for the Record that I would have voted in favor of the legislation today, as I did on previous occasions when it came before the House for a vote. I've been a consistent supporter of legislation to extend unemployment insurance benefits to Americans who have lost their jobs, and I regret not being here for the vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research and Development Act.

The Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill has highlighted the pressing need for research on technology to make deepwater drilling for oil and natural gas safer and cleaner.

While the investigations into the causes of the disaster are still ongoing, the disaster has already made Congress and the public aware of the significant shortcomings in much of the oil industry's current deepwater drilling technology--most notably its blowout preventers.

This legislation refocuses the Department of Energy's deepwater drilling research to place higher priority on research on technology that will increase the safety and reliability of deepwater drilling technology in the years to come--and rightly so.

The National Energy Technology Laboratories facility in southwestern Pennsylvania has been the Department of Energy's leader in research on ultra-deepwater drilling for oil and natural gas for many years. NETL has a talented staff with unparalleled expertise and a long and successful record of research

projects to improve the safety and efficiency of fossil fuel production technologies like deepwater drilling. It only makes sense that this legislation preserves the National Energy Technology Laboratories' role in conducting research on a subject on which they have so much knowledge and experience.

I am pleased that Chairman Gordon has confirmed that it is the Committee's intention that the National Energy Technology Laboratories will continue their important work on deepwater drilling research under the Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research program addressed in this legislation.

I commend the Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Committee for drafting legislation to shift the focus of the Department of Energy's deepwater drilling research to prioritize safety and environmental protection. It's clear from the Deepwater Horizon tragedy that there's a pressing need to dedicate more resources to this important goal.

Madam Speaker, as you know, last night was the 49th annual Roll Call baseball game.

I am happy to announce to the House today that that score has been settled this year, and the Democrats were victorious, 13-6. Of course, the biggest winners last night were our two charities--the Washington Literacy Council and the Boys and Girls Club of Washington, DC. The final numbers aren't in, as donations are still coming in, but we went over the $150,000 mark for our charities last night.

I want to commend our Republican team for a hard-fought game. They gave us a tough game right up to the last inning, and we kept all the fans in their seats to the very end.

We had a couple of outstanding plays on the Democratic side. All of us woke up with great chagrin this morning to watch ESPN's top 10 and see Anthony Weiner as No. 9 of the top 10. Also, there was some outstanding hitting from Steve Driehaus, but the MVPs on the Democratic side were killer bees Joe Baca, John Boccieri, and Brian Baird. They all had outstanding plays.

So, Madam Speaker, once again, the coveted Roll Call trophy stays blue.

I yield to my good friend, the Republican manager, Joe Barton.

I'll just say my friend is living in the past.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man of great dedication and loyalty to the working men and women of America. Mr. Ron Gettelfinger recently retired from his position as President of the United Auto Workers and I want to take this opportunity to honor him for his longtime advocacy for the American worker.

Mr. Gettelfinger began his union involvement in 1964 as a chassis line repairman at the Ford Motor Company's Louisville Assembly Plant in Louisville, Kentucky. Twenty years later, following his election as com- mitteeperson and, soon thereafter, bargaining chair, he was elected president of Local Union 862. He took on greater and greater responsibility in the UAW, serving as director, vice president, and starting in 2002, president of the union. He was reelected for second term in 2006. However, in 2009, he announced he would retire at the end of his second term as president.

Mr. Gettelfinger's accomplishments include, but certainly are not limited to, his steadfast determination which aided him in his fight for both labor protection in fair trade agreements and affordable health care for all. Most notably, Mr. Gettelfinger proved himself a strong leader during the most serious economic downfall in decades, when he negotiated tirelessly with corporate leaders in order to protect his workers' rights.

Mr. Gettelfinger has served the working men and women of the UAW with skill and dedication for decades, and I want to take this opportunity to commend him for all his efforts as a determined advocate for American workers. I want to congratulate Mr. Gettelfinger, and extend to him and his family best wishes for a well-deserved retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the artistic ability of a young woman from my Congressional District, Stephanie Taylor of South Allegheny High School. Ms. Taylor is the winner of the 2010 14th Congressional District of Pennsylvania's High School Art Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery.'' Ms. Taylor's artwork, an acrylic painting entitled ``Leaves,'' was selected from a number of outstanding entries to this year's competition.

In fact, sixty works from twelve 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. Taylor's family is proud of her artistic talents and this impressive accomplishment.

Ms. Taylor'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. Taylor'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.

I would like to recognize all of the participants in this year's 14th Congressional District High School Art Competition, ``An Artistic Discovery'' from Brashear High School, Nour Qutyan; from the Pittsburgh High School for the Creative and Performing Arts, Zoe Capcara, Emily Daley, Kyle Gorcey, Amber Key, Noel Peterson, and Audrey Stygar; from East Allegheny High School, Cody Atkins, Nikki Croft, Chey A. Gojkovich, Randy Stegner, Jr., Brianna Stevens, and Jacob Williams; from Northgate High School, Carolyn Denes, Alison Gusew, Seth Huston, Collyn

Kunkel, and Savannah Paladin; from Penn Hills High School, Jessica Clair, Nicolette Deighan, Krysty Kunkel, Dana Lyons, Chloe Regan, and Chloe Weiss; from Pittsburgh Allderdice High School, Dani Hicks, Jordan Keitel, David Newbury, April Post, Tsu Hung Tien, and Yan Yang; from Schenley High School, Maurice Campbell, Briana Jackson, Stephen Karas, Fatima Kizilkaya, and Monique Pressley; from South Allegheny High School, Alexis Carr, Kristen Kudla, Megan Stevens, and Stephanie Taylor; from Sto-Rox High School, Adam Wayne Baker, Travis Crump, Allison Funwela, Natalie Gamble, Orlando Russell, and Elizabeth Thornton; from Trinity Christian School, Rebekah Garard; from West Mifflin High School, Tori Cooper, Victoria Donahoe, and Natalie Kerrigan; and from Woodland Hills High School, Heather Evans, Elijah Johnson, Josh Rydzak, Stephan Spence, and Hoong Tosangchai.

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 today to honor a Pittsburgh resident and a constituent of mine, Father Edward Bryce. Father Bryce is celebrating the Golden Jubilee of his priestly ordination after 50 years of ministry to the Pittsburgh community.

Born in Pittsburgh, Father Bryce attended North Catholic High School and St. Charles Seminary in Philadelphia. He continued his studies at the North American College in Rome, eventually earning a licentiate in sacred theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University there. Father Bryce was ordained a priest on March 25th, 1960 and began his ministry as a parochial vicar at Immaculate Conception Parish in Washington, Pennsylvania. This first assignment was the beginning of a vocation that would carry him throughout the Pittsburgh area in service to the needs of the Catholic community.

In his 50 years as a priest, Father Bryce always seemed to find a way to minister to the community through a variety of means, often simultaneously. While teaching theology students for 6 years at Duquesne University, he also served as a Chaplin at St. Joseph's Hospital and a priest-in-residence at Holy Rosary Parish. He then moved to the motherhouse of the Sisters of St. Francis for 9 years. It was during this time that Father Bryce became more active in the larger efforts of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. In 1970, he became the founding director of the Office for Pro-Life Activities and 2 years later took the same position in the Office for Justice and Peace. This commitment to needs of the living Church community in an evermore complex society eventually propelled Father Bryce here to Washington, DC as the Pro- Life Activities Secretary for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a position which he held for 10 years.

In 1988, he returned to his hometown to lead St. Bede Parish in Pittsburgh's Point Breeze neighborhood, where he has served as pastor for over 20 years. Beyond his dedicated ministry to the faith and educational life of the St. Bede parish, Father Bryce continued to play important roles in the larger Pittsburgh Catholic community as dean of the Central Deanery, consultor in the College of Consultors, and a member of the priest council. Continuing on as administrator of St. Bede past his retirement age, he provides the parish with continuity and an ever-present model for faithful ministry.

Father Bryce credits the priests that he knew growing up in St. Bernard Parish as providing the inspiration for his vocation of priestly ministry. I have no doubt that he himself has provided similar inspiration to generations of St. Bede parishioners and members of the Catholic community in Pittsburgh.

I want to congratulate Father Bryce for his 50 years of dedicated service to the Church and the Pittsburgh community and I wish him many more years at St. Bede.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1033) expressing support for designation of April 2010 as ``National Autism Awareness Month'' and supporting efforts to devote new resources to research into the causes and treatment of autism and to improve training and support for individuals with autism and those who care for individuals with autism, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1033. This resolution expresses support for the designation of this month, the month of April, as National Autism Awareness Month.

Autism spectrum disorders are a group of developmental disabilities that affect an estimated one in 100 children nationwide. ASDs, or autism, are typically diagnosed within the first 3 years of life. Autism occurs in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. However, we know that autism affects each person and certain groups differently.

People with Asperger's syndrome, one form of autism, typically do not have difficulty with language or intellectual disability. Others with autism have more notable language delays and social challenges, among other symptoms. This form of autism is referred to as autistic disorder, or classic autism. Autism is at least four times more likely to be diagnosed in boys than in girls.

We have made important progress in research on autism within the past few years, and I and dozens of Members of

Congress who annually seek and obtain billions of dollars for autism funding know that there remains much to learn about the risk factors and causes of this group of conditions.

We must also continue to raise awareness regarding the signs and symptoms of autism. Today's resolution gives us an opportunity to do just that. This awareness raising is particularly important since early intervention has shown to improve a child's development.

This resolution recognizes and commends parents and relatives for their dedication in caring for children with autism. It supports the investment of resources into research that will help improve our understanding of autism and promote early intervention and treatment. It also recognizes the importance of appropriately trained educators to respond to students with special needs.

Those are the reasons why my friend Chris Smith and I, as founders and cochairs of the Congressional Autism Caucus, introduced H.R. 2413, the Autism Treatment Acceleration Act. That bill will reinforce our country's work to identify the causes of autism by improving the coordination of our government's efforts. And it establishes a national network of autism research in order to strengthen linkages between research and service initiatives at the Federal, regional, State, and local levels, and facilitate the translation of research on autism into services and treatments that will improve the quality of life for individuals with autism and their families. A national data repository will be created to share emerging data, findings, and treatment models.

This resolution on the floor today mentions the needs of adults with autism, and our bipartisan bill, H.R. 2413, actually creates an adult services demonstration project to provide an array of services to adults with autism spectrum disorders, including postsecondary education, vocational and self-advocacy skills, employment; residential services, supports and housing; nutrition, health and wellness, recreational and social activities; and transportation and personal safety.

I am proud that our bill, H.R. 2413, will also create a national training initiative on autism and a technical assistance center to develop and expand interdisciplinary training and continuing education on autism spectrum disorders.

We ask all the Members of the House, including this resolution's sponsors, to join us and cosponsor H.R. 2413, the Autism Treatment Acceleration Act, a meaningful bill that would achieve the goals of today's resolution.

I want to commend Representative Reichert, the sponsor of this resolution, for his work on this resolution at a time when so much needs to be done for children and adults with autism.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to note that the Committee on Education and Labor received a secondary referral for this resolution. The committee agreed to waive the opportunity to exercise its jurisdiction in the interests of advancing this resolution. I want to say thank you to Chairman Miller for allowing this resolution to be brought to the floor as quickly as possible. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).

I would just like to say that I deeply appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New Jersey on behalf of all people with autism and on behalf of their families. He has been a true champion, and I appreciate his friendship, too.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I hope that the House will unanimously approve House Resolution 1033, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, when I plugged in a Wi-Fi router in my home just outside of Pittsburgh, I noticed almost a dozen other Wi-Fi networks in the same neighborhood. My neighbors created their own personal hotspots over the same airwaves to enjoy fast wireless data connectivity for the technology in and around their home. The paradox of technology is that the more we experience new devices, new services, and new features, the more we depend on them to run our lives. Each of us who rely on our wireless devices get frustrated when the network is too congested to let us send an e-mail or browse a web page when we want to. The answer is more spectrum--the wireless airwaves that the people own and that Congress has tasked the Federal Communications Commission to manage. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has noted, the United States faces a ``looming spectrum crisis'' particularly in larger cities like Pittsburgh.

That's not hyperbole; it's reality. The demand for spectrum for mobile Internet access is growing more rapidly--much more rapidly--than the supply of spectrum is. The ability to access the Internet at high- speed on the go creates amazing opportunities, but only if we proactively take the steps necessary to ensure that we have adequate spectrum available to meet consumers' and business' needs.

New technologies are coming down the pike that can provide exponentially faster speeds to more consumers based on the amounts of spectrum that carriers can use.

And that's exactly why the Radio Spectrum Inventory Act, which I am pleased to be a cosponsor of, is so timely. By taking a comprehensive look at the way spectrum bands are currently being utilized, we can make informed judgments about adjustments that need to be made to accommodate future demands. This is the right course. This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.