Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that I was one of the authors of the amendments in 1985, and it is the intent of the legislation to give the States the right to negotiate between themselves for these compacts. It would, in my opinion, be outside the scope of this particular bill to try to limit any of the legislatures in what they could do. I would oppose the gentleman's amendment if he were to offer such an amendment. I personally do not have a problem limiting the States, but the underlying legislation gives the States the right to negotiate these compacts, and the Congress' role is simply to ratify or to not ratify the compact.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, my problem with that particular amendment, if offered by the gentleman from Dallas, TX [Mr. Bryant] and the gentleman from El Paso, TX [Mr. Coleman], is that the underlying law that gives the Congress the right to approve or disapprove the compact, gives the States the right to negotiate the compact, and we would be stepping into the State area.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that there are 9 compacts that cover 41 States. My understanding of the Federal law is that if 1 of those 41 States want to get out of their existing compact and come into this compact which has not yet been approved, that that would take congressional approval. I could be proven wrong on that, but it is a fact that there are 41 States that are in these types of compacts. Mr. Speaker, I have not received any information in my office from the Governor's office, or anybody in the Texas Legislature, that they are trying to enlarge the compact.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, I rise in opposition to what we are calling the President's budget. It is, in the materials that I have, the Clinton administration December 7 budget option which we are referring to in some of our working papers as Clinton's budget option No. 4. I want to speak specifically on two specific items in this budget: the President's proposal for Medicare, which covers health care needs for senior citizens; and Medicaid, which covers health care for low- income Americans. In Medicare, the balanced budget bill that we passed and the President vetoed would have resulted, according to CBO, in savings in waste, fraud, and abuse of $3.4 billion over 7 years. The President's option has Medicare savings in waste, fraud, and abuse of $2.4 billion, which is $1 billion less. In relationship to Medicaid, which is health care for low-income Americans, the budget bill that the President vetoed, we would have block-granted Medicaid, given more money to the States, given the Governors and the State legislatures the opportunity to actually run the programs as they saw fit. In the case of Texas, the State that I represent in the Congress, Texas would have received $55 billion over 7 years, including half a billion dollars for legal alien health care costs. The President's budget is silent on that. It maintains Medicaid as an entitlement and does not give the States the right to do anything. I hope we would reject the President's budget.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. With its passage begins the resolution of years of questionable implementation of the inspection and maintenance [I&M] program by EPA, required by sections 182, 184, and 187 of the Clean Air Act. The controversy began with the finalization of the 1992 rule. Within that rule was an assumption that decentralized or test-and- repair I&M programs were approximately 50 percent less effective than centralized or test-only programs. In addition, the final rule removed a provision within the proposed rule which would have given States a 2- year period to demonstrate the effectiveness of enhanced decentralized programs. Three years later, EPA has yet to convince States that such a discount is appropriate, and the I&M issue is as yet unresolved. This legislation begins to resolve this dispute by restoring a demonstration period in which States will be permitted to demonstrate appropriate credits. Earlier this year, the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee, which I chair, held two hearings on the inspection and maintenance issue. Those hearings called into question the basis for the so called 50-percent discount. At the time of the hearing, EPA stated that it relied on 15 years of vehicle audit and tampering data to justify this discount. However, evidence produced by the California I/M Review Committee and Dr. Doug Lawson of Desert Research Institute called into question whether this data supported the discount. At the hearing, and in follow-up questions, however, EPA stated that the basis for the discount was not audit and tampering data, but from two indepth studies conducted in California. These indepth studies of California's decentralized program indicated that reductions were 20 percent for hydrocarbons [HC], 15 percent for carbon monoxide [CO], and 7 percent for nitrogen oxides [Nox], about half what they were expected to be, according to EPA--hence the 50-percent discount. But EPA estimates credits for a decentralized program are appropriate 6.5- percent reductions in HC, 12.6 for CO, and 1.5 percent for Nox, much less than the reductions found in California. Outside studies of ``real world'' data also called into question EPA's system of credits. Two engineering professors from the University of Minnesota found that a centralized I&M program recently adopted in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region was achieving only a 1-percent reduction in CO. EPA had originally predicted the program would reduce CO emissions by 30 percent. They later revised that estimate to 9- percent reductions. If centralized testing is so effective, why would the centralized program be expected to achieve only a 9-percent reduction in CO, when decentralized programs in general are predicted to achieve a 12.6 percent reduction in CO. Finally, ``real world'' evidence taken from hundreds of thousands of remote sensing readings further indicate that whether a program is centralized or decentralized was relatively unimportant to the effectiveness of the program. The provision in this bill therefore, asks EPA to go back to the drawing board. By restoring flexibility to the States, it is hoped that States will experiment with various I&M configurations, such as remote sensing. EPA should use data from State programs so measure the performance of centralized verses decentralized programs, and both types should be examined relative to the performance standard. In particular, I am hopeful that States and EPA will use this opportunity to refocus I&M on that small minority of vehicles that cause most of the pollution. Data indicates that as few as 10 percent of the vehicles cause over 50 percent of the pollution. Therefore, techniques that screen out gross polluters such as remote sensing, should be seriously considered.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am going to rise in support of H.R. 1788, the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act. I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], the ranking minority member, and others in the committee for their fine work on this piece of legislation. Earlier this year I had introduced H.R. 832, the Amtrak Flexibility Act of 1995, which would have repealed the current statutory requirement that Amtrak pay every employee on a discontinued route severance pay equal to 1 year of full pay for every year of service up to 6 years maximum service. This bill repeals that requirement and does allow Amtrak to renegotiate its labor agreements. The committee members and the Amtrak officials and union representatives have all worked on this particular section of the bill, and while no side is totally happy, they all agree that this is a good compromise. I support that compromise. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that Amtrak has suffered a decline in ridership over the last several years and, as a result of that, their operating costs as a percentage of their total revenues have gone up, which has made it very difficult for them to make a profit. Hopefully with this legislation, Amtrak can reform itself, it can discontinue those routes that are uneconomic and maintain those routes that are, and there will be Amtrak passenger service in the parts of the country that support it. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, in support of the bill, and again want to thank the leadership for this. The bill revises a number of existing laws to enable the National Railroad Passenger Corporation [Amtrak] to operate less like a Government agency and more like a profitable business; It eliminates restrictions on contracting out many services, and allows Amtrak to renegotiate labor agreements with its unions; and It lifts the burdensome requirement that Amtrak continue operating the entire system of routes it inherited in 1971. Part of Amtrak's current quagmire is a result of their statutory severence package, which this legislation finally deals with. This bill, H.R. 1788, permits management to renegotiate labor agreements without having a mandated 6-year provision in place. H.R. 832, The Amtrak Flexibility Act of 1995, would have repealed the current statutory requirement that Amtrak pay every employee on a discontinued route severance equal to 1 year of full pay for every year worked for Amtrak up to a 6-year maximum, which the majority of employees quality for. H.R. 1788 achieves many of the goals addressed in my bill. These labor protection requirements are relics of a bygone era. This statute was mandated to protect rail workers moving to the public sector when Amtrak was created in 1971. Only 35 of those original employees still work for Amtrak. Today, Amtrak employs 24,000 people. This legislation will permit Amtrak management to make the necessary reforms, so they have a chance to become profitable. The State of Texas--according to Amtrak's own figures, their Texas ridership plummeted from 299,083 in 1993 to 202,412 in 1994. That's a loss of 32 percent. At the same time, Amtrak has only lost 13 of its 161 Texas employees. Additionally, non-payroll Amtrak spending has increased in Texas from $5.3 million to $8.5 million--an increase of 60 percent. This bill will permit Amtrak reduce unneeded routes in Texas while saving taxpayer's dollars.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], be removed as cosponsors of H.R. 2667, a bill which I had introduced.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I point out that the American Short Line Railroad Association strongly opposes the Whitfield amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Whitfield amendment for the following reasons: The Whitfield amendment would create, would mandate a 1-year labor protection for workers of class 2 and 3 railroads. A class 2 railroad has operating revenues between $20 and $250 million. The class 3 railroads have operating revenues of less than $20 million. So class 2 and 3 railroads are very small railroads. We do not need to mandate in Federal law 1-year labor buy-out agreements. The bill before us, H.R. 2539, does create a safe harbor. I want to thank the chairman for creating the safe harbor from some of these expensive mandates. It would give representatives of the labor unions and representatives of the railroads an opportunity to go before the Department of Transportation and hear both sides of the argument and then determine whether and what type of labor protection should be required. The bill before us retains existing law that gives agency approval of a merger and then requires, as I just said, the DOT to hear the case in terms of labor protection. We do not need to mandate a 1-year labor protection in this by accepting the Whitfield amendment. I do want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield] and the supporters of their amendment though because they have backed down from 5 years to 1 year, and that is at least moving in the right direction. So I would hope that we would oppose the amendment and keep the bill as is.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, last September the Republicans sent a continuing resolution to the President so that the Government would not shut down on October 1. We put in that continuing resolution enough time and money so that we could operate through all of October and part of November. What did the President do? He ordered in travel brochures to see about his pending trip to Japan this week. When we asked him last week what he was going to do, he went out on the golf course last Friday. We think there is a fundamental policy difference between ourselves and the President. We think that we need to protect our children's future. We need to come up with a plan that balances the budget in the year 2002 without any tax increases. The President thinks it is a little bit better to work on his putting stroke out on the south lawn of the White House. We are not going to vote for a debt ceiling that does not have fundamental change in it. We believe, as the last Democratic CBO director does, that the President is defending the low ground when he talks about Medicare premiums. Let us make a few things perfectly clear. Medicare part B is optional. If the senior citizens do not want to pay the premium, they do not have to. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record the following article from the Wall Street Journal about the Medicare part B premium: [From the Wall Street Journal, Nov. 14, 1995] Medicare Premiums Are Taking Center Stage In Budget Battle Between Clinton, Republicans (By Hilary Stout and Laurie McGinley) Washington.--Laura Tyson, one of President Clinton's top economic advisers, went on national television this weekend to declare a ``defining difference'' between the White House and Republicans in the escalating budget debate: the issue of Medicare premiums. And last night, President Clinton vetoed legislation to keep the government from temporarily closing down today largely because of an $11 difference in monthly Medicare premiums. The irony is that the GOP Medicare measure, which would raise the monthly premiums a few dollars to $53.50 instead of lowering them on Jan. 1 as current law prescribes, is something that the administration could probably support in another context. ``I think, in a sense, the president is defending the low ground on this'' says Robert Reischauer, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, now an economist at the Brookings Institution. best weapon Mr. Clinton objected to the stopgap spending bill for a number of reasons--including, he said, because its deep, across-the-board cuts would hurt education and environmental protection programs. But the White [[Page H 12314]] House chose to make Medicare premiums the focus of its public attacks. The president's advisers believe Medicare is their best weapon in the budget fight, and they have sought to turn the entire budget debate into a battle over the federal health program for senior citizens. Public opinion polls suggest this strategy is working. Yet the Medicare premium increase itself isn't a do-or-die issue for many elderly and consumer groups, not even for the powerful American Association of Retired Persons. ``What we have said is that we recognize that seniors need to be part of the solution,'' says John Rother, legislative director for the group, which has 33 million members. ``And that sacrifice is better borne by premium increases'' rather than through higher deductibles and copayments, which affect the sickest beneficiaries the most. Here's what the premium battle is all about: Five years ago, the last time the federal government shut down because Congress and a president were squabbling over the budget, the eventual legislative deal wrote into law the dollar-amount of Medicare premiums for the ensuing five years. The idea was to set the amount elderly beneficiaries would pay at 25% of the total program cost, with general tax revenues subsidizing the rest. (When Medicare was first enacted 30 years ago, the elderly were expected to pay 50% of the premiums.) But because the program costs didn't rise as much as lawmakers anticipated, the 1995 charge, $46.10 a month, actually amounted to 31.5% of the premium costs. That was to be rectified Jan. 1, 1996, when the law prescribed that premiums would be set at 25% of costs, no matter what the dollar amount was. That means they were scheduled to actually drop, to $42.50 a month. But Republicans want to save the Treasury money--and, Democrats charge, pay for their proposed tax cuts--by keeping the premiums at 31.5% of costs, which would amount to $53.50 a month. Administration officials accuse Republicans of trying to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly and trying to sneak their budget priorities past the president by attaching them to the temporary spending measure. Republicans contend that it would be irresponsible to lower premiums. a responsible thing to do The decision to set premiums at 25% of costs, despite the dollar amount, was part of President Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction package, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. A number of Democrats involved in those negotiations say that they didn't expect premiums to actually decrease because of it. In fact, many privately believe that keeping premiums at lest at current levels is the responsible thing to do. Mr. Reishauer said, ``31.5% as part of a fundamental structural change in Medicare is entirely appropriate, especially when combined with a surcharge on upper-income beneficiaries,'' as called for in the GOP plan. ``Medicare is a very expensive program. And it's going to have to be one that's supported not just by the general taxpayer and those paying payroll taxes, but also by the beneficiaries.'' An idea put forth by some Senate Republicans to freeze premiums at $46.10 in the stopgap spending measure stumbled yesterday afternoon, but some lawmakers were hoping to make it the basis of a future compromise. An administration official involved in the budget deliberations privately concedes that keeping Medicare premiums at the current level ``wouldn't be the worst thing in the world'' in the context of an overall balanced-budget package. But, the official adds, accepting any Medicare compromise with the GOP would be politically tough. The other objection is a procedural one--but it, too, is laden with politics. Instead of saving the Medicare premium increase for the giant balanced-budget package, Republicans attached it to the temporary spending measure, designed simply to keep the government running while the White House and Republican congressional leadership negotiate a balance- budget deal. President Clinton calls this ``blackmail.'' a strong motivation But the GOP has a strong motivation for pushing the issue now. Most elderly people might not notice the proposed increase if it is enacted soon. That's because Medicare premiums are deducted from beneficiaries' monthly Social Security checks, and Social Security recipients are scheduled to get a 2.6% cost-of- living increase as of Jan. 1. That means the average Social Security check will rise to $720 from $702, according to the government. If Medicare premiums grow to $53.50 on Jan. 1, recipients' checks will still be higher after the monthly Medicare deduction--$666.50 on average, compared with $655.90 today. But if Republicans wait to negotiate higher Medicare premiums in a budget deal, Medicare premiums will fall on Jan. 1 as scheduled, then spike up. And the GOP would most likely take the public blame at the worst possible time--the beginning of a presidential election year. The timetable for the GOP becomes even more urgent because the Social Security Administration needs to know the premium by tomorrow in order to make the changes for the monthly checks that go out Jan. 3, according to an agency spokesman. He said the agency's computer experts are trying to figure out a way to move the deadline back a few days. The AARP's Mr. Rother insists that higher premiums should be considered only as part of a comprehensive Medicare- overhaul package, not as an add-on to the stopgap spending bill. ``The issue of premiums is part of the larger questions surrounding the shape and size of Medicare,'' Mr. Rother says. Both he and other advocates of the elderly are concerned about the premium increase in the context of the entire GOP health program. ``When it comes to 31.5%, assuming it's in the Medicare budget bill,'' and not in the stopgap spending bill, ``we can live with it, provided there are protections for low-income people,'' says Gail Shearer, director of health-policy analysis for the Washington office of Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine. Currently, the poorest beneficiaries receive Medicaid subsidies to help pay for Medicare premiums, copayments and deductibles. Under GOP plans to revise Medicaid, the health program for the poor would be turned over to the states in the form of block grants. The legislation would require states to spend a certain percentage of their funds on the poor elderly, but, with premiums rising, advocates are worried the aid won't cover everyone who needs it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, unlike some of my Democratic colleagues, I am going to rise in support of this legislation and strictly speak on this legislation. I would like to point out that the bill was reported out of the Committee on Commerce on a bipartisan basis. My good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] are the chief sponsors of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to repeal the cardiax pacemaker registry established in 1984 by the Social Security Act. I would like to read the background on this legislation. It is only two paragraphs, and I think it may be of some value to our colleagues. It says that section 1862(h) of the Social Security Act requires doctors and hospitals receiving Medicare funds to provide information upon implementation, removal, or replacement of pacemaker devices and pacemaker leaders. These requirements became redundant in 1990 with the enactment of amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that established a more comprehensive system for reporting on medical devices. This legislation is needed to eliminate the unnecessary burden on the health care system, the Health Care Financing Administration, and the Food and Drug Administration. On October 12, 1995, the Speaker's advisory group on corerctions, a bipartisan task force, recommended to the Speaker that H.R. 2366 be placed on the House Corrections Calendar, which it is being done today, and which I would assume in the next 5 minutes or so that we are going to pass this, probably by a voice vote, perhaps by a rollcall vote. This is an example of where we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to eliminate some of the unnecessary Federal rules and regulations that have grown like barnacles in the Federal Code over the last 20 to 30 years. I support the leadership of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the chairman, and his effort on this and hope that we would focus on the issue at hand, this piece of legislation, and pass it forthwith.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, those speaking in favor of the Stokes motion to instruct conferees seem to believe that the appropriations process is not the proper forum for discussing environmental priorities. As chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee, I can assure you that many of the important issues covered by these riders were the subject of extensive hearings and review before our subcommittee and many others. Through coordination of effort between the appropriations and authorizers, we were able to craft positions that advance the cause of regulatory reform in this Nation while maintaining our strong commitment to protecting the environment. The appropriations riders have been subject to harsh, unyielding, and unfair disinformation campaign by environmental organizations that often devote 10 times the resources to political advocacy than their business opponents. Let me address a few of the more shrill criticisms I have heard: The language dealing with combustion of hazardous waste as an alternative fuel in cement kilns does not reduce the regulation of that activity. On the contrary, these cement kilns are already highly regulated and EPA region 7 stated this month that the regulations are more comprehensive than those currently in place for commercial incinerators. The riders merely force EPA to follow the letter of the law and process we established under the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. EPA has nothing to fear from the law. I would also point out for the record the recent statement of Barry McBee, the head of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission-- our State's EPA--regarding the use of waste fuels in the cement kilns in my district. Chairman McBee noted that the kilns in Midlothian had been subject to ``the most extensive monitoring operation'' ever undertaken by the TNRCC. The result: ``Because our research was so thorough, the TNRCC is confident that the emissions from these plants present no discernible long-term of short-term health threat.'' Mr. Speaker, this study was based upon several thousand air and soil samples testing for hundreds of contaminants. That is the kind of sound science the riders are based upon! The language dealing with title V operating permits allows the States to move forward with their programs without the heavy hand of Federal regulation stifling innovation or creating confusion among members of the regulated community. The language dealing with the clean air standards for refiners forces EPA to consider the most up-to-date information. Before my subcommittee, EPA frequently expressed the desire to embrace sound science and the best data. Supporting the refining appropriations provision is an opportunity for EPA to demonstrate their actual commitment to this principle. But Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the substance of these riders time and again. The point is that we should let our conferees be conferees. They should be able to negotiate in good faith with the Senate and to produce the best bill possible under the circumstances. Simplistically treating all the riders the same does no one any good. Please vote against the Stokes motion to instruct. Response to Administrator Browner's Letter to Speaker Gingrich 1. ``No state faces a loss of federal highway funds if they do not adopt a centralized or test-only inspection program.'' I/M State Implementation Plans were due this year. Because many states were in turmoil over I/M, EPA decided that they would require a two step process in approving a I/M state program. First, a determination of completeness, and second a determination of whether the plan was satisfactory. The completeness showing has a very low threshold (one State commented that the plan need only pass the laugh test). To my knowledge, every state has submitted I/M plans that have been determined complete. Therefore, there are no sanction clocks currently running. EPA has not made determinations as to whether state I/M plans are sufficient. In fact, EPA could determine at any moment that a States program is not sufficient. After this finding, sanctions would automatically kick in after 18 months, however, if the Administrator determines the State has acted in bad faith, EPA could apply the sanctions immediately. As an example of EPA's bad faith on this issue please see attachment 1. This is a fax from Gene Tierney of EPA to the State lobbyist, of Envirotest, the centralized testing contractor for that state, stating that if a Pennsylvania Senate amendment adopting decentralized testing was passed, EPA would disapprove their State Implementation Plan and Pennsylvania would lose its highway funds. The fax was circulated by the Envirotest lobbyist in an attempt to kill the amendment. The Amendment ultimately passed anyway. 2. ``Inspection and maintenance programs are one of the most cost effective ways to control urban smog'' . . . We do not disagree with this, although their is scant evidence that a command and control I/M program will be more effective than allowing States, as laboratories, to find more effective ways to operate I/M programs, such as the adoption of remote sensing. 3. ``EPA's inspection and maintenance regulations provide States with a great deal of [[Page H 11698]] flexibility to design automobile emissions testing programs'' . . . That is not what states are telling Congress. In a hearing before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee, republican and democratic state representatives complained about the lack of flexibility. Here are some quotes from their testimony: Mr. Mike Evans (R-28th), Georgia State Representative: For over a year now we have been hearing about EPA's new flexibility. It seems that recently there have been small advances in the direction, due in large part to the November elections and EPA's hopes that they can preempt Congress from revisiting the Clean Air Act. However, EPA's assertion that they have been more flexible is simply not so. We have not seen it in Georgia, and I do not believe other states have seen it either. The only thing we have heard from EPA is sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. It has been EPA's way or the highway, I mean no highway--as-- in --no highway transportation funds.'' State Governor Gerald LaValle of Pennsylvania a democrat stated that when he attempted to offer an amendment changing the State of Pennsylvania's program from centralized to decentralized: ``. . . EPA's response at that time was that no changes in EPA policy would be forthcoming and that any move by Pennsylvania to delay or alter its program would be met by sanctions. In other words, Mr. Chairman, there were no options.'' 4. ``Also, States that have had test-only programs for many years are choosing to continue them because they work'' States that have had centralized programs do not keep them because they work, but because EPA gives the States 100 percent credits for operating such a system. States that have attempted to go to centralized testing in the last several years have been nearly run out of town by motorists. Programs started in Maine are now on hold, as well as Maryland. Pennsylvania which had contracted to go centralized has now announced it will go decentralized plan, and Texas has backed away from its centralized testing plan as well. 5. ``. . . scientific data over the last 15 years of inspection programs in States around the country shows that some programs in States around the country lower auto emissions more effectively than others.'' That may be true, but it does apparently depend on whether the program is centralized or decentralized. For instance a RAND report in October 1994 finds ``[i]n terms of program effectiveness, our research finds no empirical evidence to require the separation of test and repair.'' (centralized) A February 1995 report that the California Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee concluded ``[w]hether an I/M program is centralized or decentralized has not been an important factor in determining historical I/M program effectiveness.'' Other studies call into question whether EPA has the evidence needed to support a 50 percent discount for decentralized programs. The General Accounting Office before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee in 1992 that while some of the audit and tampering data EPA refers to shows ``test-and-repair is less effective, it does not provide quantifiable support for the 50 percent reduction.'' 6. ``Contrary to the letters contention, this conclusion is not based on theoretical models but not on tailpipe tests of thousands of vehicles in the field.'' The fact is that EPA has never been able to prove enhanced centralized testing achieves the emission reductions they claim. When asked by Senator Faircloth if the centralized I/M240 achieves its own performance standard, EPA responded ``There are two IM240 programs currently in operation. Both have been operating for less than a year and, hence, are too new to have had a complete evaluation.'' In other words EPA does not have this proof.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the environmental legislation that I am introducing today, the Small Business Remediation Act of 1995, is designed to ensure that small businesses and landowners will not be subjected to unreasonable remediation liability for drycleaning fluids. The intent of this bill is to strike a balance between adequate environmental protection and the avoidance of needlessly costly remediation not justified by human health exposure. To fill the void in EPA's cleanup standards for the drycleaning fluid perchlorethylene (perc), the proposed legislation uses an extrapolation from another Federal agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], which already has a standard covering an estimated 99.9 percent of all exposure to perc. This is a rigorous standard required by law to adequately protect workers from harmful effects of a chemical, even if they are exposed 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, for their entire working lives. Recognizing the difference between workplace and environmental standards such as the ``healthy worker'' effect and the potential exposure in the environment of 24 rather than 8 hours a day, the bill sets a safety margin or an entire order of magnitude. That is, the exposure standard for remediation in this bill 10 times stricter than OSHA allows for an entire working lifetime. If OSHA even lowers its standard, the remediation standard set in this bill will follow accordingly. The bill seeks to address the real risks from perc exposure. It seeks to change the well-intentioned, hopefully apocryphal, process in which standards are selected to protect children even from eating tons of dirt for 70 years. Instead, an independent government scientific body will simply determine the equivalent exposure the general public faces, using realistic exposure and absorption assumptions. That information, plus the OSHA standard, will be used to calculate the proper amount of remediation necessary. Importantly, the bill protects all people from real human exposure by explicitly declaring it does not change existing Federal standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act. While this bill does not specifically address third-party liability, it should remove all or most of that threat. If remediation is not necessary, except in the case of significant human exposure, and there is a congressional finding based on OSHA standards and the calculations of the National Institutes of Health that any health risks are small, it is difficult to see how there could be serious litigation, either under the environmental statutes or the common law. I believe this bill is consistent with the Superfund reform legislation introduced last week and other regulatory reform legislation which seeks to relate environmental costs to real benefits. By doing so, the bill will benefit not only the tens of thousands of small drycleaners and their employees but also shopping mall owners, insurance companies, banks, and consumers. They will be free from the fear of crushing liability from an ordered remediation that could cost them a lifetime of savings, merely for such pointless requirements as cleaning up soil behind a shopping center to arbitrary pristine levels. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Medicare is going to lose $18 billion this year from waste, fraud, and abuse. That is $50 million a day, $2 million an hour, $3,000 dollars a minute. Since the debate began at 9 o'clock this morning, Medicare has lost $6 million due to waste, fraud, and abuse. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us has the toughest penalties ever presented to the Congress on waste, fraud, and abuse. For the first time we have a definition of Federal health care fraud. Mr. Chairman, I want to read that very quickly: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise a scheme or artifice, commits or attempts to commit an act in furtherance of or for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice to defraud any health care benefit program; or to obtain, by means of fault or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit program. That is the definition. They can be fined and imprisoned for up to 10 years. If the fraud results in bodily harm, they can be imprisoned for up to 20 years. If the fraud results in death, they can be imprisoned for life. Mr. Chairman, that is tough. If they make a false statement, they can be imprisoned for 5 years. That is currently a misdemeanor. If they try to embezzle or steal money, they can be in prison for up to 10 years. If they try to bribe or engage in graft, they can be in prison for up to 15 years. Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on, but this bill has the toughest waste, fraud, and abuse penalties ever presented to this Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: D-Day, 6th of June; Fifty Years Later White crosses, thousands, all in a row; how still. Beneath them, young men who never grew old. Heroes; some say, who died so that others could live in freedom. Look closely at these crosses and listen to the voices of all these young men. I died so that you might live in a free world. I died so that you could do greater things with your lives. I died so that this earth could be a better place for you and your children, so that peace, love and respect for each other as brothers would rein. I gave you the rest of my life so that you could build a peaceful world. Each man living their lives for good; enjoying all the good things life has to offer. I gave you the most precious gift I had; I gave you my life, my future. Oh, if only we could rise up from this place where we have laid so long; we could show you what life should be like. All of us here, could show you what life really means.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, independent directory publishers currently rely on local telephone companies, who hold over 96 percent of the telephone directory market and [[Page H 8498]] have total control over access to subscriber list information. Section 222(a) of H.R. 1555 requires carriers providing local exchange phone service to provide this information on a timely and unbundled basis, under nondiscriminatory and reasonable rates, terms, and conditions, to any person upon request. Independent publishers have pioneered many of the innovations in the directory industry, including coupons and zip code listings. Yet, because of problems in accessing subscriber listing information at reasonable rates, many independent publishers now find it extremely difficult to compete. In many States, independent publishers are forced to wait until the local carrier's directories are published before they can obtain the subscriber list information necessary to publish their own directories. Even when subscriber lists are available, independent publishers often encounter significant competitive obstacles. As the Commerce Committee report on this provision indicates, over the past decade, some local exchange carriers have charged excessive and discriminatory prices for subscriber listings. In one case in my area of the country, a jury awarded $15 million in damages when it found that a telephone company had raised listing prices by 200 percent in an effort to drive an independent publisher out of business. The Commerce Committee report makes it clear that (r)easonable terms and conditions include, but are not limited to, the ability to purchase listings and updates on a periodic basis at reasonable prices, by zip code or area code, and in electronic format. The report further indicates that section 222(a) should ensure that telephone companies will be fairly compensated. In order to avoid future excessive pricing, this statement incorporates the concept that prices be based on the incremental cost of providing the information to the independent publishers.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. When we reregulated cable 3 years ago, I was absolutely opposed to that. I voted against it in subcommittee, I voted against it in full committee, and I voted against it on the floor, and I voted to sustain the President's veto when he tried to veto the legislation. We do not need to be regulating cable rates. Cable is not a necessity. The Federal Government has absolutely no right to be setting prices for cable television. The amendment that is before us would do that. We have wisely in the legislation deregulated 90 percent of the cable industry. We should keep the bill as it is, we should vote against the Markey amendment. I would vote against it two times, three times, four times if I had the constitutional authority to do so, but I am going to vote against it once.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], for trying to work out an agreement on this amendment. We have been in negotiations right up until this morning, and were very close to an agreement, but we have not quite been able to get there. I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak] for his leadership on this. This is something that the cities want desperately. As Republicans, we should be with our local city mayors, our local city councils, because we are for decentralizing, we are for true Federalism, we are for returning power as close to the people as possible, and that is what the Stupak-Barton amendment does. It explicitly guarantees that cities and local governments have the right to not only control access within their city limits, but also to set the compensation level for the use of that right-of-way. It does not let the city governments prohibit entry of telecommunications service providers for pass through or for providing service to their community. This has been strongly endorsed by the League of Cities, the Council of Mayors, the National Association of Counties. In the Senate it has been put into the bill by the junior Republican Senator from Texas [Kay Bailey Hutchison]. The Chairman's amendment has tried to address this problem. It goes part of the way, but not the entire way. The Federal Government has absolutely no business telling State and local government how to price access to their local right-of-way. We should vote for localism and vote against any kind of Federal price controls. We should vote for the Stupak-Barton amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, this is a very good amendment. There is no question that we are having an explosion of information on the emerging superhighway. Unfortunately part of that information is of a nature that we do not think would be suitable for our children to see on our PC screens in our homes. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] have worked hard to put together a reasonable way to provide those providers of the information to help them self- regulate themselves without penalty of law. I think it is a much better approach than the approach that has been taken in the Senate by the Exon amendment. I would hope that we would support this version in our bill in the House and then try to get the House-Senate conference to adopt the Cox-Wyden language. So, Mr. Chairman, it is a good piece of legislation, a good amendment, and I hope we can pass it unanimously in the body.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the subcommittee chairman of oversight investigations, a post the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] held for so many years with such distinction, if his investigations uncover something that is worthy of investigation by that subcommittee, I will be happy to work with the gentleman and the full committee chairman to fully follow up on whatever he finds out.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Further reserving the right to object, I had asked for the same consideration. I am supporting the Stupak amendment, which is only 10 minutes of debate time, and it asks for the same consideration. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak], and myself are in continuing negotiations, and it is quite likely that we would have an agreement so that there would not have to be even a vote on that amendment, and I was told that we could not do that. Well, if we cannot do that, I am going to object to the gentleman from Michigan doing it. Now if we can get unanimous consent that our little 10-minute debate can also be tomorrow, then I will not object.