Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Automatically.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am rising in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I support the provision that is in the bill. I am just trying to point out that we have got, I believe, that the bill as stands has the protections that the gentleman is trying to attempt, because we require full disclosure.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my comment was directly on the specific entity, the specific entity. And under the language in the bill, if that entity, if they represented a specific entity, they are automatically excluded. Under the gentleman's language, they are not.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Yes. No peer reviewer representing such entity may be included on the panel if the decision affects that single entity that they represent.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am on the two committees that have reported this legislation to the floor, and I think we need to make a few basic points. No. 1, I do not even think the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the author of this amendment, is opposing the peer review, because he lets the first two subparagraphs stand. He is substituting subparagraph (3), and I want to read the paragraph that he is substituting for. It says, in the bill, ``shall not exclude peer reviewers with substantial and relevant expertise merely because they represent entities that may have a potential interest in the outcome, provided that the interest is fully disclosed to the agency and in the case of a regulatory decision affecting a single entity, no peer reviewer representing such entity may be included on the panel.'' Well, we are trying to do, I think, in the bill what the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] is attempting to do, but we do say that they are not automatically excluded given, No. 1, that they fully disclose what their interest is, and, No. 2, if it is a decision that only affects their interest, affects their entity, then they are not going to be on the panel at all. Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts says we shall exclude. We say shall not automatically. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] says they shall be excluded unless they disclose their interest, and the agency reasonably determines they are not going to create a bias in favor of obtaining an outcome. Well, we both want to disclose. We just change the burden of proof to say they are not automatically going to be excluded unless the decision directly affects the entity they represent, in which case they would be excluded. Well, as I read the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], that exclusion does not stand. If I read it correctly, they could actually even impact a decision that directly affects them if the agency says it is OK. In some ways what we have in the bill is stronger, except for the fact that we say the burden of proof is not in the beginning automatically to exclude them. In your burden of proof, they are automatically excluded.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, what we are saying is we can protect you but we want to use sound science to promulgate rules in the future and rules in the present that are based on existing law.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, on section 3, line 5, page 4, it says the situation that the head of an affected Federal agency determines to be an emergency, the act does not apply.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is why I am opposed to it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] is opposed to it.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Hallelujah.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], who just defeated me on my amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, what we have said in this act of Congress that is before us, H.R. 1022, we are saying in earlier sections that we want scientifically valid risk assessment to be used in the future, and we say in this section notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, we want it to be used from now on if there is a conflict.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the substitution the gentleman from New York is attempting to offer, if he offers it successfully, in my opinion, it really guts the intent of this bill, because the whole reason that we are doing risk assessment is to say that we ought to put in process a basis, a system, that uses scientifically valid risk-assessment principles in a forward way in terms of new laws and new rules and in terms of existing law. If there is something underway already, they have to use these principles that we put in the legislation, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] very, very plainly states that nothing in the act shall be construed to modify any statutory standard or requirement in existing law. He also eliminates the substantial-evidence test that has been put into the legislation that says when we do risk assessment in the future, promulgate a new rule or regulation, you have to show there is substantial evidence proving it should be done. So there are a number of reasons that I think this is an unwise substitution. I oppose it. I would hope my colleagues would oppose it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. There has been some talk that somehow it is just the big business interests that support this amendment. The American Petroleum Institute does support it. The Chemical Manufactures Association does support it. But the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which is a small business organization, supports it. And if you look at the list, the Alliance for Reasonable Regulation and you look through all the companies that support the bill, they also specifically support the Barton-Tauzin-Crapo amendment. There is some companies in here, while I am not personally cognizant of them, I do not think Barney Machinery Co. is a big business. I do not think the American Lawn Mower Co. is a big business. So it is small business, the people that exist, and as the gentleman pointed out, have to live day to day under these regulations that are supporting this very important amendment.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We have the same requirements. It has to be the $25 million threshold. We do not change that. We require quite a bit of documentation in the petition process. We also require they show it would be cost effective.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the bottom line, and I respect the gentleman for letting me ask some questions, we simply have to have a way to at least review existing rules and regulations that allows America to come in and request this. We disagree on that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I would respectfully disagree with that, because we set up a process that is fairly circumscribed as to what has to be in the petition, the time frame the petitions can be reviewed, and we do have a date certain in which if the agency determines to take a petition, that they have to consider it and make a ruling. So none of that is litigious.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we do not add anything in the petition process that requires litigation or precludes litigation that could exist under current law.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman and certainly respect his opposition. I would like to see if the gentleman could tell me where there is additional litigation required by the petition process, because we do not preclude any potential litigation.

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