Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the Northeast heating oil reserve is on the books. It is on the books. The Clinton administration has asked that it be repealed.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to commit to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) that I am planning to do a series of hearings on our energy policy in this country in the next month.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) withdrawing his amendment?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, section 157(a)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is entitled Regional Petroleum Reserve. It gives the strategic petroleum reserve plan. It shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a Regional Petroleum Reserve in, or readily accessible to, each Federal Energy Administration Region, as defined in title 10, Code of Federal Regulations in effect on November 1, 1975. It is in effect today. The Clinton administration has sent a letter to my subcommittee asking this be repealed.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) just said. But, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I want to make several points before we go to final passage. We have several bipartisan groups in this Congress willing to deal with energy policy. One is called the Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, which I serve on. One is called the Committee on Ways and Means, which many other Members serve on. One is called the Committee on Resources. One is called the Committee on International Relations. There may be other committees. What we need to do is begin to address some of these fundamental problems on a long-term basis, not bring a piece of legislation to the floor that, while well-intended, does nothing but exacerbate the problem and nothing to solve the problem. Let me elaborate on that. We currently consume in the United States about 17 million barrels of crude oil and refined products. We currently produce about 8\1/2\ million. So we are importing around 9 million barrels per day. That is a number that none of us are happy with. What have we done to maximize domestic oil and gas production in the last 7 years? Absolutely nothing. In fact, we have gone just the other way. We have taken more of the OSC leasing program and put it in moratorium. We have taken the on-shore programs on Federal lands and put them in moratorium. We have enforced stricter and stricter environmental standards on our refineries so that refinery capacity in the United States is declining. We have done absolutely nothing at all except make it more and more difficult to maximize domestic energy production. So is the solution to pass a bill that alienates not only our OPEC partners but also the non-OPEC countries, like Mexico, Russia, Norway, and Great Britain? Let me give my colleagues some production numbers. The United States has 21 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves. The world has 1 trillion and 33 billion. So we are less than 2 percent. We are producing, obviously, quite a bit at 8\1/2\ million barrels per day, but that is nowhere near what we need. The amount of foreign aid, military aid, economic aid, and food aid that we gave the 11 OPEC nations in the last fiscal year was less than $200 million, $198 million. That is less than one day's imports if we were to look at it on an equivalent based on $30 per barrel oil. Do my colleagues think that OPEC countries are going to think that giving up $200 million is any great loss to them? That is not a sword. That is not a paddle. That is not even a rubber band. This is a spitball. That is what that is. Would it not be better to work with OPEC, to work with the non-OPEC producers, to work with our domestic oil and gas and interpretive energy producers in this country to develop a comprehensive energy policy? Would it not be better to do that than to bring this bill to the floor and send the signal to OPEC that we can just rattle our indignation? No one has suffered any worse than my constituents from rising energy prices. We have seen gasoline prices at the pump go up 60 to 70 cents per gallon in Texas where I live. We have seen some of our low-income residents have to seek assistance to pay their heating bills this winter. We are not saying we need high, high energy prices like have happened. But on the other hand we are not saying that we should react in a knee jerk fashion when the solution is no solution at all. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would oppose this legislation, work with the committees that have jurisdiction, that could do some tax incentives like the Committee on Ways and Means, that could do some energy policy initiatives like the Committee on Commerce, that could do some of the leasing provisions like the Committee on Resources and bring forward bipartisan legislation in the very near future to address these problems in a fundamental fashion. I would hope that we would do that and oppose this legislation.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, with reluctance, I also reserve a point of order on Traficant amendment No. 23.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the Traficant amendment No. 22.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the Traficant amendment No. 21.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Why do we not start with the Traficant number 21. Amendment No. 21 Offered By Mr. Traficant

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to tell my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, I know that he knows this, but I want to repeat it; I have no greater respect for any Member of the House than I do for my distinguished friend from Michigan. However, I rise to insist on this point of order to maintain the prerogatives of the Committee on Commerce for which the former chairman served with distinction for so many years. The pending amendment that he has just put forward violates clause 7 of rule 16 of the Rules of the House of Representatives which requires that an amendment be germane to the matter that it is amending. It is not germane to the bill because it has a different subject than the underlying bill and the amendment concerns matters entirely within the rule 10 jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. First, the purpose of H.R. 3822 is to direct the President to reduce, spend or terminate foreign assistance in arms export authority for countries determined to be engaged in oil price-fixing. The Dingell amendment, however, reauthorizes the Energy Policy and Conservation Act for the fiscal year 2003. These provisions address an entirely separate question from the one in the underlying bill which renders the amendment nongermane under the rules. The pending amendment also is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce under rule 10 of the Rules of the House. The underlying bill, on the other hand, is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. The jurisdiction test has long been regarded as a primary indicator of germaneness. For these reasons, the pending amendment is not germane to the bill under consideration, and I must insist on my point of order.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would not be germane to that bill, but it might well be germane to some other bills that we are going to bring to the floor.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished gentleman from Michigan be allowed to speak for 1 minute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would not be germane to that bill which is a straight reauthorization of this Energy Policy Conservation Act, no. So a straight answer to that particular bill, it would not be germane.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, based on that understanding, I would terminate any comments simply to say that sometime next week there are two pending bills at the Committee on Rules, one of which came out of the House, the Committee on Commerce on H.R. 2884, which deals with the reauthorization of EPCA. We should be able to move one of those bills next week. I insist upon my point of order if the gentleman does not withdraw his amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I speak today with great sadness about a tragedy which happened early this morning at Texas A&M University. A great tradition that all Aggies hold very dear--Texas Aggie Bonfire--collapsed, killing at least six people and injuring as many as 25. My thoughts and prayers are with the parents who lost children, and the students who lost friends. Texas A&M is a family, and today the Aggie Family is in shock, grieving for our dead and injured students. For those of you who have not ever heard of Texas A&M Bonfire, it is one of the most cherished Aggie traditions. Traditions are very important at Texas A&M. The bonfire tradition revolves around building and burning the world's largest bonfire. In past years, it has soared over 100 feet high and burned all night. This year's bonfire was scheduled to be over 60 feet high and burn until after midnight. Aggie Bonfire has been a tradition at Texas A&M since 1909 when they used it to stay warm during the ``Yell Practice'' on the night before the annual A&M-Texas football game. The bonfire represents everything Aggies are about: hard work, unity, dedication, and loyalty. It also represents a burning desire for A&M to defeat the Longhorn football team. Several thousand members of the student body contribute in one way or another to building bonfire. When I was a freshman at Texas A&M, I participated in Bonfire by going out to ``cut''. The ``cut'' area is selected a few months before the football game against t.u. Areas are selected that need to be cleared for construction and then the work begins. The entire bonfire is built the ``Aggie'' way. Trees are cut down by hand, they are lifted and carried out of the woods on shoulders, they are loaded onto trucks by hand, unloaded by hand, stacked by hand and wired into stack by hand. In my sophomore year, I was ``promoted'' to the stack area and helped erect the actual bonfire. It is often said that if other schools had a tradition like this they would probably contract it out to the lowest bidder and then all show up just to watch it burn, but not the Aggies. Not only do we do it all ourselves but we do it the hard way. The building of bonfire builds character. The hard work and sacrifice of time teaches a good work ethic that is not soon forgotten. What does it mean to be a Texas Aggie? A&M is a special place. Values are taught both in the classroom and out of the classroom. Aggies lives our traditions and cherish them, and pass them onto their children. I have three children, two have graduated from A&M and my youngest daughter will enter A&M next Fall. In spite of the tragedy that has occurred, it is my hope that Bonfire continues in the great spirit in which it embodies, and that my daughter Kristin will help build it in years to come.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon tomorrow.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as one of the last speakers to speak in this chamber in this century in terms of other than the purely procedural motion, it is with great sadness that I rise this evening to talk of a terrible tragedy that happened early this morning in College Station, Texas. The university where I graduated from in 1972 and where my father graduated from in 1947, where my son graduated from in 1993, and my daughter in 1997, has a tradition called Bonfire. Students spend several months going out and first cutting down the logs and then transporting the logs to the campus, and then once on campus, sorting them out and stacking them together to create a bonfire which some years has been over 100 feet tall, and which this year was somewhere about 40 feet tall and was scheduled to be about 60 feet tall. Earlier this morning, somewhere between 2:30 and 3 a.m., the bonfire stack catastrophically collapsed, sending 50 to 60 students that were on the stack plummeting down. Unfortunately, at least six of them have been killed; over 20 have been injured. There are still five unaccounted for, and there is a possibility that the death toll could rise to over 10 students. Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible tragedy for Texas A&M; it is a terrible tragedy for the families of the victims; it is a terrible tragedy for young people in our country. It is a sad, sad day in College Station, Texas. Texas A&M truly is a family. There are over 250,000 living former students of Texas A&M, and the Aggie family, literally all over the world, is in shock and mourning for the students and their families, the students that were injured and killed and their families. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other Aggie traditions, one of which, unfortunately, will have to be utilized in the very near future. Silver Taps is a tradition at Texas A&M where any student that dies while an active student, there is a ceremony on campus where all of the lights are turned out in the evening, all the students gather at a common area in front of the academic building and Silver Taps are played. So sometime in December, there will be Silver Taps for the students that were killed earlier this morning and Aggies mourn their passing. There is a memorial service that is going on as we speak. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), whose district Texas A&M is located in, flew down to College Station earlier this afternoon to be with the students there as they have that memorial service this evening. The bonfire has been held every year but one year since 1909. In 1963, after the assassination of President Kennedy, the bonfire was canceled. That is the only time that it has been canceled until next week. Because of the tragic accident, there will be no bonfire at Texas A&M next week before the football game between Texas University and Texas A&M. Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in strongest sympathy this evening. I would ask all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pray for the families whose children have been killed or injured. I have one more daughter, Kristin, who is a senior in high school this year, and she hopes to attend Texas A&M. It is my hope that the A&M administration, President Bowen, who is an excellent academic leader and faculty leader at Texas A&M, will conduct a full investigation of this accident. If there is a way to find a cause and to prevent it from happening in the future, I know that he will do that, but I also hope that we do not cancel the bonfire in the future. Again, hundreds of thousands of former students of Texas A&M have participated in the bonfire. With almost no exceptions, those who have participated have nothing but the warmest, fondest memories. We need to grieve for our students who lost their lives early this morning; we need to support the investigation to find the cause of that catastrophic accident, and hopefully we can come up with safety procedures so that the bonfire can continue in the future. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all of my colleagues pray for the families of those students who lost their lives early this morning at Texas A&M.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to correct a long-standing problem in the management of Department of Energy facilities. Current law provides a special deal for DOE's non-profit contractors. When these non-profit contractors violate DOE's nuclear safety regulations, they are exempt from paying any fines for their misdeeds. This exemption means that we now have two different sets of rules for DOE contractors--one set of rules for the conventional for-profit contractors, who are subject to fines for safety violations, and another set of rules for the non-profit contractors, who pay no penalty whatsoever for safety violations. Because there are no adverse financial consequences when these non- profit contractors violate safety rules, we have unintentionally created a system in which there is little incentive for the non-profit contractors to take their nuclear safety responsibilities seriously. The 1988 Price-Anderson Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act specifically exempted seven contractors, including non-profit institutions such as the University of California, from civil penalties. In a 1993 rule, the Secretary of Energy provided an automatic exemption from civil penalties for all non-profit educational institutions. This bill would amend the Atomic Energy Act to eliminate the statutory exemption for specific non-profit contractors and also eliminate the authority of the Secretary of Energy to provide, by regulation, an automatic exemption for all non-profit educational institutions. At the Committee's request, the General Accounting Office recently completed a review of DOE's enforcement of nuclear safety rules, documenting recent DOE safety violations at DOE facilities. Of the total penalties assessed from 1996 through 1998 for safety violations, one-third of those penalties were assessed against non-profit contractors--and because of the exemptions in statute and in regulation, never had to be paid. GAO concluded that the exemption for non-profit contractors should be eliminated. It made that recommendation in its report to Congress, and it testified to that effect before the Commerce Committee in a hearing on DOE Worker Safety on June 29, 1999. This is a good example of how the legislative process works. Problems in agency performance, in this case recurrent safety problems at DOE facilities, prompted a closer look by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, with the assistance of the GAO. This led to the legislation we are introducing today to solve those problems.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the cosponsors of this resolution, and I rise in strong support of it. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) for bringing it to the floor. Most of the opposition that has been expressed on this this afternoon has been more on the process. We have had the complaints that there have not been adequate hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary, et cetera. That is usually a leading indication that they really cannot argue the policy. All one has to do is read the Constitution where it talks about freedom of expression and freedom of speech, freedom of religion. I do not believe anybody in everyday America thinks that a public prayer before a football game or some sort of a public event is establishing an official religion. If one goes back to our Founding Fathers' time and one looks at why they put in the prohibition against establishment of an official religion, it was because, in many of our States, the Anglican church was the official church. If one goes even down to the great State of Texas before it became a State, the Catholic church was the official church of Mexico, one had to convert to Catholicism to come into Texas in the 1820s. Saying a public prayer before a football game is not the establishment of a religion. It is the acknowledgment that there is a supreme being and that those in attendance and those in participation wish the protection or the blessing of the supreme being as they engage in the contest. As a United States Congressman, I have given public prayers before football games in Texas. As a football player way back in the dark ages of the 1960s, I have given public prayers during football games. I strongly hope that we will pass this resolution by the two-thirds necessary to suspend the rules.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce be discharged from the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2981) to extend energy conservation programs under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act through March 31, 2000, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend my fellow Commerce Committee colleagues on the amendment they are offering today. This should be an easy vote which will achieve real regulatory reform by requiring the FCC to take an action it should have taken years ago. I doubt that many of our constituents would be shocked to know that the federal government has made certain industries duplicative, unnecessary, work since 1935. For the last 64 years, the federal government has required local telephone companies to keep two different sets of accounting books. The Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission both require a standard for all businesses to follow when keeping their books, which is according to the ``Generally Accepted Accounting Principles'' (GAAP). However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) makes local telephone companies keep a separate set of books in order to comply with the ``Uniform System of Accounts,'' which was put in place in 1935 in order to facilitate the Commission's oversight of AT&T. Like many other aspects of the federal government that have remained in place for decades, the Uniform System of Accounts is unnecessary and needs to be changed. This needless system costs the industry and its consumers an estimated $300 million dollars every year. In addition, the FCC requires longer depreciation lives for high tech equipment that telephone companies need to provide advanced services to consumers. Slower depreciation may mean slower recovery of costs, which would reduce the incentives these companies have to deploy new technology. I urge all Members to support this amendment. By following GAAP, the FCC will not be jeopardizing universal service, local competition or any other congressional policy. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I look forward to that opportunity.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I want to rise to commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman for what he has done but to condemn him for not going as far as he should. The bill as reported out of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services had no privacy protection at all. The bill that was reported out of the Committee on Commerce had privacy provisions that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) offered that some people thought was too inflexible. I supported the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). I worked with him and his staff to come up with a modified Markey-Barton- Dingell-Inslee-Eshoo et al. amendment that we offered to the Committee on Rules that was not ruled in order. I remember the old days when we thought that banks should be banks and insurance companies should be insurance companies and brokers should be brokers. That was the good ol' days of the 1980s, not the 1940s or 1950s. Well, tonight we have before us a mega-financial service reform bill that, according to those that support it, is going to allow companies to operate through hundreds of subsidiaries and affiliates, hundreds. The question that I ask this body and the country is: If we are concerned about the selling and sharing of information to third parties, should we not be just as concerned about the selling, sharing, transmitting, or accessing that information inside of these affiliates if there are going to be dozens or hundreds of these affiliates? I think that what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) have done is a step in the right direction. But it is only a step. Until we solve the riddle of handling information within the affiliates structure, we do not have privacy. We do not have privacy. So I will vote for the amendment because it is a step in the right direction, but I will vote against final passage until we get this issue settled. It is not going to go away. We need to address it. The debate this evening on the floor is good. I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) and others for bringing the debate to the country. But the ultimate solution is not Oxley-Pryce. We need to go further.