Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, does that include Republicans?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is just up the road, I will admit to that, my good friend. But this site could withstand a 6.0 magnitude effort quake directly beneath it and sustain no damage; and, again, there was been no earthquake of this magnitude in the region in over 750,000 years. Let us talk about local support. My good friend (Mr. Bonilla) waved and alluded to a great list of Texas counties that oppose this site, and I have no doubt that that is a true list. In this county, the local elected officials that ran for reelection in the last local election supported the site and were reelected. Recently, in the office of American Statesmen there was an open letter asking that the site be approved signed by over 100 local residents, many of them elected officials. So I think that there is support for it in the region. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill passed the House 309 to 107 back in October. Based on the rule vote that we just had, it is hopefully going to pass with that order of magnitude again in the next 30 or 40 minutes. We need to pass this bill; we need to let Texas, Vermont and Maine go about their business; we need to let the State of Texas go ahead and address the concerns that have been raised by the administrative law judge. In conclusion, I want to read the conclusion of the administrative law judge's report. This is on page 7 TNRCC, docket number 96-1206-RAW. It says, and I quote, If the Commission approves the application, the draft license should be modified to clarify that the facility could accept waste containing a total of no more than 1 million curies of radioactivity over the 20-year license term. With this clarification, the performance assessment, including the consideration of nonradiological impacts and accident scenarios, is adequate. So the administrative law judge did not approve the site, but they did not disapprove it. They said that there are some concerns that need to be addressed by the Licensing Commission in Texas, and if those concerns were addressed, it should be approved. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a few miles away. My understanding is it was over 100 miles away, and it was less than 3 on the Richter scale. That is my understanding, but I could obviously be corrected.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to govern floor debate on the conference report on H.R. 629. It passed the House 309 to 107 earlier this year. It is a good piece of legislation. It authorizes three States, Texas, Vermont and Maine, to enter into a compact to accept low-level nuclear waste. I think some of the rhetoric we have already heard in the rule debate is hotter than the waste that is going to be in this site when it is constructed. I think we ought to pass the conference report and let the three States go on about their business like we have already let 42 other States.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will try to go through this very quickly. I believe my good friend from Austin was the president of the student body at the University of Texas. He obviously has a golden throat and is able to weave words very carefully. I was just a poor engineering student at Texas A&M trying to see how to use a slide rule so I do not claim that I am as elequent as he is. I did try to list his 5 points down as he enumerated them. He talked about waste being there for all mankind. Eighty-five percent of the waste is going to decay to harmless levels within 30 years. Ninety- eight percent within harmless levels within 100 years. The canisters are designed to last 500 years. I do not think there is any question but there will not be any danger if we accept this waste on this site. He talked about site location. That has been determined by the State of Texas, not by the U.S. Congress. He talked about the administrative law judge saying that we do not really need a site. Actually the administrative law judge said that there is no other acceptable site. The waste that is being generated now at 97 locations in Texas and several in Vermont and Maine is being stored on site. The administrative law judge says that is simply not acceptable. He talked about the safeguards being meaningless. Again, the administrative law judge, in their application review, has said that we should limit the amount of waste stored to no more than 1 million curies. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) has pointed out there are going to be 6 commissioners from Texas and one from Vermont and Maine. They will have the safeguards of the populations of their States high in their mind. I guess to close I would simply state that we have debated this issue several times. It passed the House in October, 309 to 107. Hopefully it will pass again with a margin that large in the very next few minutes. Let us do the right thing. Let us let Texas, Vermont and Maine adopt this compact, and let them go about the business of safeguarding the low-level waste that these three States generate.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, to summarize, I appreciate the gentleman's clarification. I agree that EPA should not be stopped from fostering legitimate scientific research and balanced public debate on this issue because there is still much to be learned in this area. During our numerous congressional hearings on this issue, the administration has not been willing to engage in this debate. For example, we have yet to receive an authoritative analysis of the economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol reflecting all of the constraints on possible emissions trading. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce, I look forward to working to assure that the administration, EPA and CEQ understands this guidance, and I thank the patience of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I understand that there is more concern about the report language in this bill than the legislative language. There seems to be various interpretations of the report language.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Michigan if the Senate has taken a similar position in their VA appropriation bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise in opposition to the Nadler amendment and, in addition to that, enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Knollenberg, I have read the various ``Dear Colleague'' letters that have been distributed on the committee bill and listened carefully to the floor debate on this issue. Is it the committee's intention to limit EPA programs such as a climate challenge, the program for a new generation of vehicles, green lights, energy start and other programs that Congress has funded in the past? I raise this issue because these programs have increased energy efficiency over the range of U.S. energy in industrial sectors of our economy. It would not seem that it was the intent of the legislation to report language or limit these activities.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, July 22, 1975, was a hot sultry day in Crockett, Texas. Early in the morning my wife woke me up and said, ``I think the time has come to take me to the hospital.'' We did, and, luckily, within an hour or two, we had a beautiful young baby daughter, Alison Renee Barton. Alison grew up to be a delightful young girl, playing in the sandbox, playing house. As a teenager, she was the lead in a one-act play in her high school, and, now, as a beautiful young woman, she has graduated from Texas A&M and is going to be a teacher. Today, on her birthday, I just want to say, that Alison, your father loves you, your mother loves you, your brother and sister love you. Happy birthday.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey to explain his amendment and to answer any questions he may have.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey to explain his amendment and to answer any questions he may have.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Don Young) is 65 today and eligible for Medicare. Today is his birthday.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the record a letter received by every Member of Congress from the National Conference of State Legislators, dated June 4, 1998, signed by Representative Tom Johnson, Ohio House of Representatives. It says, ``As reported by the conference committee, S. 1150 contains a substantial unfunded mandate to States, confirmed repeatedly by CBO, that not only violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act but breaks the agreement crafted by the Congress and the States on welfare reform. The proposed offset reducing the Federal reimbursement rate for State food stamp administration represents a $1.7 billion cost shift to States without similar reduction in programmatic responsibilities required under the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.'' The National Conference of State Legislators supports the point of order of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). Mr. Speaker, under the savings that were found in the conference, there were $2 billion of administrative cost savings found in the overall administration of the food stamp program. The conferees allocated $800 million to restore benefits for certain categories of legal aliens in this country. That is 40 percent of the increase. They did provide an additional $500 million for crop insurance and $600 million in a new program for agricultural research and an additional $100 million for other agriculture research programs. Those are good programs that would stand the scrutiny of this House. I am not sure that $800 million restoration of food stamp benefits for legal aliens would withstand the scrutiny of this House if we had a full vote. I hope we would sustain the point of order of the gentleman from New York (Chairman Solomon). Let us eliminate the unfunded mandates that are in this bill. Let us report out the money for the farmers and the research universities that needs to be reported and then work on the food stamp program as a stand-alone issue. Mr. Speaker, I include the letter from Representative Tom Johnson for the Record. National Conference of State Legislatures, Washington, DC, June 4, 1998. Dear Member of Congress: The National Conference of State Legislatures fully supports the Rules Committee's decision to allow a point of order on S. 1150, the Agricultural Research bill and urges you to support the point of order when it is raised by Representatives Rob Portman and Gary Condit. As reported by the conference committee, S. 1150 contains a substantial unfunded mandate to states (confirmed repeatedly by CBO) that not only violates the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA) but breaks the agreement crafted by the Congress and states on Welfare Reform. The proposed offset reducing the federal reimbursement rate for state Food Stamp administration represents a $1.7 billion cost shift to states without similar reduction in programmatic responsibilities required under UMRA. The National Conference of State Legislatures has long been supportive of efforts to restore Food Stamp benefits to legal immigrants; however, we vehemently oppose the funding of these benefits through a reduction in federal Food Stamp administrative reimbursement to states. It is disingenuous for the Congress to solve one cost shift to states by imposing another. We urge you to support the point of order on S. 1150 and look forward to continued partnership with the Congress in restoring Food Stamp benefits to legal immigrants. Sincerely, Tom Johnson, Ohio House of Representatives, Chair, NCSL Federal Budget & Taxation Committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise in support of the rule, as amended, whether we either accept it by unanimous consent or vote to accept it. I want to take the blame for being the skunk in this garden party, because it was me, yesterday, that said I would come to the floor and object to the unanimous consent to bring the conference report up immediately. I told that to the Republican leadership. I was prepared to do that. So the Republican leadership yesterday afternoon was prepared to bring the conference report, bring it to the floor, or at least get unanimous consent to bring it to the floor last evening or this morning, and I was prepared to object to that. Under the normal rules of the House, any Member can stand up and object to any item in a conference report that is outside the scope as reported by the House and the Senate. Under normal procedure. Not under a special procedure. And I was prepared to do that. In attempting to address the legitimate concerns of agricultural research and crop insurance, we tried to craft an approach that we could waive the normal rules of the House, except on certain provisions: one dealing with food stamps, one dealing with unfunded mandates. And, in doing that, inadvertently, certain things were taken out that should not have been taken out. So the chairman of the Committee on Rules is attempting to amend the original rule. All I and I think many Members on this side of the aisle want is an up-and-down vote on these expansions. If we win, we win. If we lose, we lose. My good friend from Abilene, Texas, pointed out that the State of Texas has decided to extend some benefits to certain aliens that were eliminated in the Welfare Reform Act. Texas and every other State has the right to do that under existing law. I would also point out that the welfare rolls are down 30 percent nationwide, and I am not aware that there are huge numbers of people that have suffered as a consequence of that. There may be individuals that have, and we can address those as needed. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has a bill, he told me this morning, that would reestablish some of these benefits. It should be brought to the floor. It should be voted on on its own merits. But we should not cast stones on people that want to go through regular order, trying to insist that conference reports come back within the scope and be voted on within the scope. So, again, to conclude, I am the skunk of the garden party that yesterday afternoon said I would object to the unanimous consent request to bring the ag research bill up as it came out of the conference, not the chairman of the Committee on Rules, not the majority leader, not the Speaker. So if there is a skunk in this debate, it is the gentleman from Texas (Joe Barton), of the Sixth District.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. This legislation passed the House 309 to 107 last year; it passed the Senate earlier this year by unanimous consent. There are 42 other States that have such compacts. The motion before us is simply to send the bill to allow the House to appoint conferees to go to conference with the Senate. I think we can all agree to that. If we pass this in the next several minutes, there will be no motions to instruct. We will just go to conference, we will let the conference work its will and then we will have one final vote of both the House and the Senate on this legislation. So let us all vote in favor of appointing conferees and send this bill to conference.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to send this bill to conference with the Senate. It did pass the House last year 309-107, which is a tremendous bipartisan show of support. All this bill does is ratify the ability of the States of Maine, Vermont, and Texas to enter into a compact for the storage of low-level nuclear radioactive waste. Nine other compacts have already been ratified by the Congress that comprise 42 States. So this legislation is necessary to give the State of Texas, the State of Vermont, and the State of Maine the opportunity to do what 42 other States already do; and that, simply put, is to enter into a compact for the storage of this waste. It is low-level radioactive waste, it is not high-level. And I would point out to some of my friends in Texas who oppose this, if we do not ratify it, under the commerce clause of the Constitution, any State could send low-level radioactive waste to the State of Texas. So this is a good piece of legislation. It has already passed the House once in this Congress 309-107. The Senate passed similar legislation. We need to appoint conferees and go to conference. So I would support the motion of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer) to appoint conferees and go to conference and hope that the House would likewise do so.