Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. But the bottom line is we want cleaner air at lower cost or more flexibility. And I think we both agree on that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the petitioner, in the gentleman's case, the mobile source industry, shows substantial evidence they can achieve the same result with greater flexibility and lower costs, EPA does have to agree to review it. Then it has to make a final decision, and it has to prove that final decision with substantial evidence. Then the current law kicks in on the review.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I point out that we do not change the law, we do not change the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act specifics that if a certain percent of environmental increase in air quality is going to come from stationary sources, we do not change that, but we could under this amendment----

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, we put language in the amendment where we are attempting to mandate there be a lower compliance cost.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, I make a couple of points on his point. No. 1, if the bill passes, there are not going to be as many new rules and regulations promulgated. I think that is a given. So there are going to be people that have time to do that. No. 2, in the petition, the system that we set up, we require that as part of the petition the information be shown that which shows that the rule or program element concerned can be administered at a substantially lower cost of compliance or in a manner which provides more flexibility to the States. So we are attempting, you know, nothing is certain in this life except death and taxes, But we are attempting.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, first of all, we do require that anybody that petitions be able to show that there is going to be substantially lower cost of compliance and more flexible cost of compliance. So on a net basis we think it is going to save money on a net basis. No. 2, we do not require that any additional employees be retained to do this review. We happen to believe that there are enough Federal employees in the affected agencies that can do the review. So I am not going to prevaricate and say that I have done an extensive cost analysis of our amendment. But we do not believe that it is going to bear an additional cost to society. In fact, we think it will save money.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the difference is the language that we adopted in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] wanted to substitute any person, which would literally be anybody breathing in this country. In consultation with people both for the amendment and opposed to the amendment after the markup in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we decided to seek a middle ground between any person and a person who has a direct financial interest, so the standard we chose was an affected person. Now, an affected person is still a very broad definition. It is somebody affected in a cost way by the rule or regulation or living in an area that is affected by the consequences of the regulation. So an affected person is not quite as broad as any person, but it is still a very broad definition.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. In the ``purpose'' it says, The purpose of this section is to provide an accelerated process for the review of Federal programs designated to protect human health, safety, or the environment and to revise rules and program elements where possible to achieve substantially equivalent protection of human health, safety, or the environment at a substantially lower cost of compliance or in a more flexible manner.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is correct. If the agency says yes, we are going to review it, then there is an 18-month period during which the agency has to review it. It is not an open-ended review. We create an 18-month period, once they have made the decision they shall review it. Then there is 18 months in which they have to review it, so they cannot let it go on indefinitely.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It is challengeable under the existing laws. We do not put in a new burden of proof in terms of judicial review.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. You have 6 months in which to present your petition and then the agency has 6 months to look at the petition. The agency then makes a determination. If it is a negative determination that says no, we do not want to review it, the agency has to publish reasons why it reached the negative determination and show that it had substantial evidence to prove that it should not review the regulation.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. But based on the petitioner presenting evidence. You cannot just say I think it all ought to be looked at; there are very substantial evidentiary requirements that are required for the petition.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If in the petition the petitioner has shown that there is adequate documentation to show that there is reasonable cause that the petition should be reviewed, then the agency has to review it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. There is a 6-month period for all petitions to be received by that particular agency. The agency will consolidate those petitions if they are similar in nature, and then the agency makes a decision as to whether to accept the petition.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his support.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to offer this amendment on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], and the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo]. The basic point of this amendment goes to the thrust of the bill. Under the bill that is before us today we are putting in place a mechanism by which we can do a valid scientific risk assessment. We are putting in place a process by which new laws and rules and regulations that flow from them, there has to be a scientific risk assessment done. The bill before us today, however, does nothing to require a review of existing rules and regulations. The economy today is laboring under a burden of somewhere between 400 and 600 billion dollars' worth of the existing regulations and costs the average American family about $6,000 per year. If Members think that some of the existing rules and regulations should be reviewed, if Members believe that some of the existing rules and regulations should be subject to review, then they should vote for this amendment. If Members think that every existing rule and regulation that is on the books today is sacrosanct and should not be reviewed, vote against the Barton-Tauzin-Crapo amendment, because what the amendment does is set up a very structured process by which any affected party out in the country can petition the relevant agency for a particular rule or regulation to be reviewed. It has to be a major rule as defined under the bill, in other words, has a cost impact of $25 million or more on an annual basis. We allow a 6-month window by which parties petition the affected agency. We then allow the 6-month window for the agency to consolidate the petitions and decide which if any of the petitions have merit. Then we allow an 18-month period for the rules and regulations that do have merit that need to be reviewed, and as each of these windows opens and shuts, the first 6 months' window to petition, when it closes then you have a second 6-month window open up. Altogether there are 8 years' worth of windows for the petition, there are 8 years' worth of windows for agencies to review the petition and then there are 9\1/2\ years of windows for the agencies to actually make a decision on a petition process. We have done everything we can in drafting the amendment to make sure that there are no frivolous petitions offered. We require that when the petitioner comes forward that they supply document that there is an alternative that will have the same amount of impact on either a most cost-effective basis to society or give more flexibility to State and local governments. We do not try to supersede any of the other procedures in place that may allow for rules and regulations to be reviewed under some other natural process. Our amendment has tremendous support. The Alliance for Reasonable Regulation supports it. There are over 1,500 organizations in that alliance. The Chemical Manufacturers Alliance supports our amendment, the National Federation of Independent Businesses support our amendment. Altogether there are over 3,000 groups around the country that are strongly supporting this amendment. Again, the bottom line is if Members think the existing rules and regulations that are on the books today need to be reviewed then the petition process, if adopted, is the only thing that guarantees such a review may occur. If Members think everything that has been passed in the past 100 years is OK, then Members would vote against it.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have worked on this bill in both the Committee on Science and in the Committee on Commerce. The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Crapo, is absolutely correct, there is no definition of emergency. I think the gentleman's definition is well within the spirit and the intent of the legislation. It is well crafted, it is tightly drawn, it is very concise. Any member who plans to support the legislation would certainly not go against any other option if they vote for this amendment. I would hope that we will adopt it. it by a voice vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last December my sister, the only sister that I have, had a bouncing baby boy born on December 18, 1994. It is her first child and just a delightful young man. I would like to read into the Record an announcement of Parker Travis Gerro's birth. I want to point out to my colleagues that the poet is not myself but my sister. Welcome to Parker Travis Gerro On December 18, '94 A precious life began; A Texas-style Republican, Was born to Mike and Jan. The Gerro's are ecstatic; Uncle Joe Barton, too. A new Conservative in Arlington Is a baby dream come true. Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to have this young man in the world today. We hope his life is happy, healthy, and productive.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his comments.