Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It does not say. It just says ``if made known.''

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

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just feel compelled to correct the record. Under existing RCRA regulations, waste incinerators, according to the information I have, are not regulated at all for metal disposal. Under RCRA regulations, cement kilns are. The gentleman from Delaware just spoke about dioxin regulation. I want to read something from the EPA. It says: According to EPA combustion emissions technical resource document, dioxin emissions from commercial hazardous waste incinerators are 2.2 times more toxic than those from cement kilns. All cement kilns are in compliance with stringent dioxin emission standards found in the EPA's BIF regulation, which is boiler, industrial and furnace regulation. Hazardous waste incinerators have no similar regulations. I want to read something else from EPA Section Chief Paul Godholdt. It says: Some people say that incinerators are more highly regulated than cement kilns, but in most cases that's not true. Cement kilns are more highly regulated. That was on July 3, 1994. EPA has defended the boiler, industrial furnace rules in Federal court as protective of human health and the environment. This is an inside-baseball argument between two industries, one that uses waste totally in its furnaces, the incineration industry, and the other uses 5 percent of its fuel source from hazardous waste material and destroys it 99.99 percent.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, last year on August 10 before this [[Page H 6795]] body, we had the same piece of legislation, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. At that point in time there was an amendment offered by the Senate to specifically set aside $65 million as part of the settlement agreement with the State of Texas for the construction of the SSC to use to build a medical treatment center for cancer and research. I stood on this floor and supported that agreement, as did many other Members on both sides of the aisle. At that time, there was some concern that the State might decide at a future point in time not to use the money for the building of the cancer treatment center, and I again said that that would not happen. To make a long story short, Since August 1994 the State of Texas has, in fact, decided not to use the $65 million to build and operate the cancer treatment center. They want to use the money for other purposes. I think that the only honorable thing to do, since I was a supporter of the agreement, is for me to offer an amendment to rescind that money, if it is constitutional to do so. That is what this amendment does. I am told that a point of order can be made against it. The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee has reserved that point of order, so at the appropriate time, unfortunately, I will have to withdraw the amendment. However, I believe that we should put in the Record that we did intend for this money to be used to build a cancer treatment center. It was my purpose at the time to have the money spent for that reason. I still think that was the best use of those funds.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the subcommittee chairman and the full committee chairman. Mr. Chairman, I submit material from last year's Record for this Record, as follows: Senate amendment No. 35: Page 19, line 19, after ``tract'' insert: ``: Provided further, That of the amounts previously appropriated to orderly terminate the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1994, amounts not to exceed $65,000,000 shall be available as a one-time contribution to the completion, with modification, of partially completed facilities at the project site if the Secretary determines such one-time contribution (i) will assist the maximization of the value of the investment made in the facilities and (ii) is in furtherance of a settlement of the claims that the State of Texas has asserted against the United States in connection with the termination of the SSC project: Provided further, That no such amounts shall be made available as a contribution to operating expenses of such facilities''. Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us today in effect approves the tentative agreement reached to settle the claims of Texas against the Department of Energy for shutdown of the superconducting super collider [SSC]. Much about this settlement disturbs me--and should disturb every Member of this body. Under the settlement, taxpayers will be forced to shell out more money for a dead project to pay off spurious claims by Texas--claims that were expressly rejected by this body in 1990. Worse still, the agreement sets up a mock peer review process to provide additional funds to the States. The review process in the settlement has more in common with a shotgun wedding than with normal scientific merit evaluation. Under the settlement, if the reviewers--whom Texas will have a say in selecting--do not approve the $65 billion grant, the entire settlement is nullified. This sounds more like peer pressure than peer review. I hope no potential source of future funds for the linear accelerator is taken in by this unusual arrangement. Finally, I'm concerned that the Department of Energy already seems to be sidling away from its initial statements that the settlement can be funded entirely from fiscal 1994 appropriations. I hope the Department proves more capable of living within cost estimates than it has in the past. Still, despite all this, and despite the covert way the Department has proceeded, I will reluctantly go along with this settlement because I believe delaying the shutdown now will cost taxpayers even more money. There's a benefit to be gained simply in putting this entire episode behind us. In addition, my two primary concerns have been addressed. In a letter that I will include in the Record, the Department has pleaded that this will be the last Federal money going to the SSC site and that termination costs should be held to the level already appropriated. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 29, 1994. Hon. Hazel R. O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,

Mr. BARTON of Texas. All I am trying to do is keep my word to the House of Representatives when I stood on the floor and said these funds would go for cancer treatment and research. I believe that. I still at this point in time think that was the most appropriate use, but our State leaders have decided otherwise. They have the legal authority to do so. I would just hope that between now and the conference, the subcommittee chairman will work with the ranking member to work with the Attorney General to see if there might be some way yet to rescind these funds.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman would yield, it would be the intent of my amendment, if passed, to put the money back in Federal control, and let the authorizing committees in the House and the Senate reprogram the funds to the best purpose that they see fit. That would be the intent of my amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct. In fact, we have a monologue by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman, last year on that very point. He asked the Department of Energy and they said specifically that they did not believe that they could authorize $210 million unilaterally; that they felt like the most they could give to the State in cash was $145 million, but they could support the $65 million for the cancer treatment center if it passed peer review.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct. As a part of the settlement agreement, there is an alternative settlement procedure that gives the State the right to do so. That alternative settlement agreement was not a part of the public record. What is a part of the public record is, and it was unequivocal in the conference report, in the report language and in all the public comments, was that if the House and the Senate would agree, this $65 million would in fact be used to build this cancer research and treatment center if it passed peer review, which it did.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America has many symbols, but the paramount symbol is the flag of the United States. Because of that, it is worthy of special respect; because of that, it is worthy of special protection; that is why we are here today. Until 1989, there were numerous States that had flag statutes that protected the burning of the flag, the desecration of the flag. As has been pointed out, the statute in my State of Texas was overturned by the Supreme Court. The amendment before us today specifically gives the Congress and the States the right to pass other statutes so they can protect the American flag. It is important that we allow this amendment to be passed. The distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman], who earlier stood on the floor and pulled out of his surface bag of tricks various paraphernalia, said, ``Is this the flag? Is this the flag?'' There were no flags that he pulled out of his bag. That is the flag of the United States of America. That is the flag of the United States of America. The flag that is flying over our Capitol today at half mast, because of the death of former Chief Justice Warren Burger, that is the flag of the United States of America. The flag that Patton's divisions took into Europe to liberate the death camps at the end of World War II, that is the flag that we want to protect. The flag that was flying over the air base when then Captain, now Congressman, Sam Johnson came back from captivity in the Vietnam war, that is the flag that we want to protect. The flag that General Schwarzkopf sent into Kuwait to liberate Kuwait, that is the flag that we want to protect. What act is so despicable that the only way we can exercise freedom of speech is this country is by burning the American flag or desecrating it? I can think of no act that is that despicable. That is why we need to pass this amendment, give our States and our Congress the right to protect the paramount symbol of the United States of America, the American flag.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the clean water bill, H.R. 961. Among its many good provisions, which have already been described and extolled, is a commonsense solution to an issue that has unnecessarily burdened cities in my district, as well as many others, regarding separate ``Sanitary Systems Overflows'' [SSO's]. H.R. 961 instructs the EPA to develop a reasonable, flexible, consistent, and economically feasible approach for controlling discharges from SSO's. It also instructs them to stop, review, and modify enforcement actions for projects required under the old policy. While overinterpreting the Clean Water Act, the EPA has required cities with SSO systems, like Dallas and Fort Worth in my district, to eliminate all overflows. The overflows in question do not present a public health or water quality concern. Yet, to date, the EPA has forced cities in Texas alone to begin hundreds of millions of dollars of work to eliminate all overflows. This bill will correct this situation. We have come a long way since I asked EPA officials to meet in my office with representatives of Dallas and Forth Worth on this I thank the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his help on this issue and would like to work with him to make some technical and refining changes that are currently being discussed. I strongly support the solution included in this bill and look forward to it becoming law.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today Commerce Committee Chairman Tom Bliley, and Telecommunications Subcommittee Chairman Jack Fields, introduced the largest telecommunications reform bill ever to go through Congress. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this historic legislation. The Communications Act of 1995 will be the biggest job creation bill to pass this Congress. This legislation moves a number of currently heavily regulated industries into true market competition with each other, thus ensuring consumers real choices as to who to place their local telephone, cable television, and electronic data business with. The bill, when it becomes law, puts the consumer in the driver seat for all of his or her communications needs. It is the most comprehensive, promarket and procompetition bill introduced for these services in the history of the Congress. The current telecommunications laws were passed over half a century ago when there were few radios, television existed only in the laboratory, and computers had not even been thought of. Today, telecommunications services are expanding daily and our laws should be expanded accordingly. Congress should quickly move ahead with this reform effort to meet the new challenges facing us today. I support this deregulatory approach that will promote growth and competition in the telecommunications industry. If we can create a fair marketplace for telecommunication services, the industry, through competition, will create the much-touted information superhighway in a less expensive and more efficient fashion.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dingell- Peterson amendment, and I want to make several things absolutely crystal clear. No. 1, I drafted this amendment as the Barton amendment, not knowing that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson] had already drafted the amendment. When I found out that they had already presented it to the Committee on Rules, I asked if I could add my name to the bill. But I had drafted the identical amendment that is before us, so I do not consider this to be necessarily the Democratic amendment. No. 2, if this passes, I am going to vote for it on final passage. I am not doing this simply as some sort of subterfuge. I am doing it because, as has been pointed out repeatedly on the floor this afternoon, overwhelming numbers of American citizens support term limits. They happen to think that if we pass a term-limit bill, it should be effective immediately, not 12 years from now, not 19 years from now, that it should be effective immediately. Now, I have the greatest respect for people like the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bill McCollum, and the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Bob Inglis, who have steadfastly for many years campaigned on term limits and support term limits and say they are going to abide by their self-imposed limit whether the Congress passes anything or not. So I think they are totally sincere. But the bills they are supporting do not take effect immediately. There is only one bill that automatically takes effect immediately. That is this one and, you can perhaps make the argument, the bill of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Van Hilleary], which gives the States the right to set a term-limit bill that would be effective immediately. If there is a problem that term limits is the real solution to, the problem is current Members of Congress that have already been here too long. This is the only vote that affects those people today. If we pass the Dingell-Peterson amendment, they will not apply for reelection in their primaries in the spring of 1996. They would not be allowed to. Term limits are an issue which needs to be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives. We should commend the Republican leadership for doing that. We should commend the Republicans like the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis], and others who have worked so hard to bring the issue before the American people. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that all Republicans would vote for this substitute because again, it solves the problem that term limits are supposed to solve. It affects us in this body today. Today. And if we are not willing to vote for this, unless you are willing to limit yourself individually, like the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] is, then you are really not a supporter of term limits.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, they also have State government, local government, small business.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. In the gentleman's earlier comment, he said that the bill is going to create phony review panels or at least has the potential to create phony review panels. I would ask if the gentleman has read subparagraph 1 where it says, panels consisting of experts shall be broadly representative and balanced, and then it goes on to say, represent State, local, tribal governments, small business, other representatives of industry. Do you not believe that that paragraph which remains intact under the Markey amendment is going to ensure that there is a true review panel?

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we do not automatically exclude people because they happen to represent an interest that has an interest in the pending rule or regulation and the peer review. We understand that there are many of these rules and regulations that are so technically complex that we have to have experts. As long as we fully disclose and guarantee that if the regulation specifically affects a single entity they are not going on the panel, for example, given the fact that in subparagraphs 1 and 2 we are providing for a broad range of peer review, that it is not just this one individual, that we think the bill as is should stand. We get the outcome the gentleman from Massachusetts is attempting to obtain, but we do not put the burden of proof on the peer reviewer.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. The point is, we do not feel they should automatically be excluded.