Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We are going to address this issue again in the very near future.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. It does not have everything I want in it. We took the nuclear trust fund off budget in the Energy and Commerce bill, and this bill has a portion that disallows that. I did not get everything that I want. Mr. Speaker, I am told that over 100 amendments were offered to the Committee on Rules, and either in the manager's amendment or amendments that are going to be debated on the floor, that 28 of those amendments have been incorporated in some fashion. The Republican leadership is not ducking any of the tough issues. We are going to have an amendment to strike ANWR, the drilling provision up in Alaska. We are going to have an amendment to increase the CAFE standards, which is very controversial. We are going to have several California-specific amendments on price caps and oxygenated fuel. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very fair rule. We are going to let the House work its will. I hope when it comes to final passage that a majority will vote for this bill. Three of the four committees reported their portions of the bill on a bipartisan basis. In the Committee on Science and Technology, it was a voice vote by unanimous consent. In the Committee on Energy and Commerce, it was a 50-5 vote. In the Committee on Resources, it was about a 3-to-2 vote in favor of supporting the bill. Only in the Committee on Ways and Means was it a partisan vote. That came out on a partisan vote, unfortunately. This is not the only energy package that is going to be on the floor, it is just the first energy package. I plan to put together an electricity restructuring bill, a nuclear waste bill, a pipeline safety bill, a Price-Anderson nuclear insurance indemnification bill, and bring those to the floor this fall or early next spring. I am sure that the other committees with jurisdiction are going to do similar things. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair bill. Energy is the lifeblood of our country. We need to do something on the demand-and-supply side. There will be a number of amendments that may move it one way or the other. I hope that we have a fair debate, and I hope that we vote for the rule and final passage.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding to me. I am going to support the rule, but I am very opposed to the self- executing portion of the rule that takes the nuclear waste fund and puts it back on-budget. We passed the nuclear waste fund to take it off-budget, both in the last Congress and again in this Congress in the subcommittee and in the full committee. That fund has $10 billion in it at the current time, and it is adding about $800 million per year. Because of a budget amendment enacted several years ago, only $400 million is available for the fund to be dispersed. We need access to every penny of the $10 billion if we are going to build and operate a nuclear waste repository in the near future. I am disappointed the rule eliminates the provision that would take the waste fund off-budget. I hope later in this Congress we can put it back on budget.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); the full committee ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); and my ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). A fair amount of the bill before us came out of my subcommittee on a bipartisan basis. I believe that in subcommittee it passed 29 to 1, and in full committee, as amended, it passed 50 to 5. The bill before us is a balanced approach to our Nation's energy policy. On the supply side we have components of the bill that would address nuclear power in this country, the issue of boutique fuels, some hydroelectric licensing reforms, a significant title on clean coal technology, and obviously a major title on conservation. Bills that came out of other committees addressed the access issue, specifically the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. The Committee on Ways and Means put together a tax provision. And I must say I am a little puzzled by some of the opposition to the tax title. Most of the tax extensions are just that, extensions of existing tax credits. To the extent they are new provisions in the tax title, they are for renewable and clean coal technology, which I think we have tremendous bipartisan support on. The bill that is before us is not the total answer to our Nation's energy policy. It is a good step in the right direction. I hope later in the fall to put together a comprehensive electricity restructuring bill that will come out of subcommittee and full committee and come to the floor on a bipartisan basis. We want to do something on the nuclear fuel cycle, including Price- Anderson, the insurance fund. And once the President makes a decision on a repository for the high level nuclear waste, we want to put together a nuclear waste bill. We also want to reauthorize and improve and reform our pipeline safety bill. So the bill that is before us is simply a step in the right direction. This Congress has the opportunity, and I think the obligation, to be known as the energy Congress. We are going to start that today on a bipartisan basis. I urge Members to keep an open mind on the amendments, but on final passage I hope that we will vote in support of the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I am honored to rise and speak in recognition of the Escort Aircraft Carrier Sailors and Airmen Association. Members of the ECSAA served our country in both World War II and the Korean Conflict aboard the CVE Aircraft Carriers, better known as ``Baby Flattops.'' Through their acts of bravery, these Veterans helped to bring World War II to an early conclusion and saved numerous lives. Until now, they have gone unrecognized for their invaluable contributions to the military successes of our nation. It is time for our Government to make its appreciation evident to these brave Veterans and recognize them, as a whole, for their valor and dedication to the preservation of our great country and its people.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Sununu-Wilson. Even if you are against drilling in ANWR, you ought to support this amendment. It is a self-limitation amendment. It is like I came on the floor and said, The national speed limit is 70 miles an hour. I think we ought to go 60. And somebody says, No, you can't do that. You've got to go 70. Or you've got to go 80. This is a very sensible amendment. Two thousand acres is about 3 square miles, which would be about 9 miles. The District of Columbia is 10 by 10 or 100 square miles. This is 9 percent of the District of Columbia. With the technology available, we have already shown in Prudhoe Bay we can drill environmentally responsibly. This self- limitation amendment should be supported, I think, by unanimous consent. I commend the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for offering it, and I hope that we pass this one on a voice vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, they asked a great American bank robber why he robbed banks. He said, that is where the money is. Well, why do we want to drill in ANWR? Because that is where the oil is. We have drilled three million wells in the lower 48. Two million of those have been in Texas. I would die and go to heaven if they would tell me I had a 10 billion oil field in my backyard. I would go clip coupons and live on the beach. But, unfortunately we do not have much oil and gas left in Texas. The mid-case example in ANWR is 1 million barrels a day for 30 years; 1 million barrels a day for 30 years. That is 25 million gallons of gasoline a day, 176 million gallons a week, 706 million gallons a month, or 9 billion gallons a year, for 30 years. That saves 5 to 15 cents a gallon every day for 30 years for every American consumer of gasoline. It is the right vote. Vote no on Markey-Johnson. Vote yes for American energy security.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if price caps worked, we would not need this debate. California has had price caps. They have had price caps at $750 a megawatt hour since a year ago this last month. They lowered that to $500 a megawatt hour a year ago this month. They lowered it to $250 a megawatt hour in September of last year. They did not work. Let us go to the next chart. This chart is very confusing, which is why I put it up here, because I am the only one who can understand it. But what it shows is, comparing the 2 years, 1999 and 2000, when price caps were in effect, power went out in the State of California. People did not keep their power in California; they exported it when those price caps were in effect. Now, then, if my colleagues think that is a confusing chart, I have one that is even more confusing. Only an MIT engineer, which is actually the people that developed this chart, can understand it, but what it shows is when we have a price cap, prices are higher than when we do not. We may have a little variation back and forth, but I guarantee if you call MIT, who developed this chart, they will tell you, if you have price caps, the price caps are going to be higher, not lower, on the average. Prices in California right now are below year-ago averages, because they are finally building some power plants, they are finally getting their act together with retail prices. Mr. Chairman, we do not need the Waxman price cap amendment. We beat it in subcommittee, we beat it in full committee, we are going to beat it on the floor. I hate to keep beating the price cap to death, but if we have to, I would ask that you join with me to defeat the Waxman amendment one more time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith). (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) have an additional 2\1/2\ minutes of my 10 minutes that he can control.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) be allocated 5 minutes of the time that I control in opposition and that the gentleman be allowed to yield time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the Cox amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, never have so many fine fellows from California been so wrong. It is good to have the California delegation unified for a change on the floor, but it would be better if they were unified on something that was actually a step in the right direction. To my left I have a chart that is developed by the EPA that shows the baseline under the Clean Air Act passed in 1990 for the minimum air quality standard. There is about an 18 percent improvement based on the quality of 1990. The blue bar shows those States, those cities, that have decided to meet the standard by adding MTBE to their gasoline. You can see that on average they have almost doubled their air quality. The red bar shows the areas which have chosen to meet the air quality standard by adding ethanol. On average, they have improved it about 10 percent more than the minimum. It is true we can meet the minimum air quality standard without using either MTBE, the blue bars, or ethanol, the red bars, but just barely. Just barely. Mr. Chairman, if we adopt the Cox-Waxman amendment, the air is going to get dirtier in California. I do not think that is the intent, but that is the effect of it. The Clean Air Act has actually worked. More oxygen in gasoline means that it burns cleaner. Do we really want to revoke that? I think not. I hope we vote against the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on the El Paso investigation. That is a serious investigation. One of the components of that investigation is the fact that there is an artificial constraint at the California-Nevada border, and it is caused because of this very problem that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) is trying to remedy. There was natural gas that was able to be delivered into California that was not able to be delivered into California, so the transmission charge, which in the rest of the country is around 25 cents for MCF, got as high as $60 for MCF. It is partly because of this artificial constraint, which we are trying to remedy. We are trying to lower natural gas prices for all Californians.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. No other State has done what California does in taking interstate pipeline and downsizing the diameter so they could call it an intrastate Hinshaw pipeline. There is only one State that has done that, and it is the great State of California.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as we do this energy debate on the floor today, we are going to have a number of California-specific amendments. We are going to have a California-specific amendment on price caps. We are going to have a California-specific amendment on the oxygenate refuel requirement on the Clean Air Act. It is only fair that we have one California-specific amendment that would actually do some good. The Hinshaw pipeline exemption was put into law in 1954 because there were a number of States that wanted to gather natural gas, they wanted to distribute natural gas, and they did not want to be subject to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or, at the time, the Federal Power Commission, regulation in terms of the low-pressure sales of their natural gas pipeline. So they put in the Hinshaw exemption. One State, one State of all the 50 States that have tried to create Hinshaw pipelines used this exemption to thwart the Natural Gas Act of 1934, and that State is the State of California. They made a policy decision that an interstate, that is a pipeline that is going between States, when it hit the California border, they changed the size of the diameter of the pipe so they could call it an intrastate pipeline not an interstate pipeline. Now, the little display of my colleague from Houston over there is really not to scale. That shows about a 10-inch pipeline and a 6-inch pipeline. In truth, they are going from a 48-inch pipeline to a 36-inch pipeline, or from a 42-inch pipeline to a 30. It is actually a bigger discrepancy than my friend shows. It is only fair if we want to actually help lower natural gas prices to the Golden State of California, and we want to lower electricity prices, that we actually require that an interstate pipeline in California is the same as an interstate pipeline anywhere else in the country. So we have a discrepancy now of somewhere between a half billion cubic feet a day and a billion cubic feet a day of natural gas that can be delivered to the California border but actually accepted and transmitted across the California border. If we adopt the Green amendment, and I hope that we will, we will eliminate this kind of artificial disparity that State regulators and State legislators in California have created over the last 45 years. So I would hope we would adopt the Green amendment and allow us, allow people that want to help California by providing more natural gas actually do that. With that, I offer my strong support for the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the only Member of Congress who has won a national championship.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we are going to continue to debate it, I have people who want to debate it. This is a device used to get an extra 5 minutes, I understand that. But if we are going to continue to do that, I will reclaim my time and use it in opposition to the amendment. I recognized the gentleman for a unanimous consent request to withdraw his motion.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the gentleman would withdraw his motion.