Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I just want to ask the two authors a few questions. Is there anything in this amendment that might have the unintended effect of slowing the process down even further of getting these regulations in place?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment simply to ask some questions, though I will not be in opposition at the end.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We support the amendment and seek no time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition only to claim time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we don't oppose the amendment and seek no time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as our distinguished majority leader and the Speaker leave the floor, I would point out that the vehicles that they drive with their security detail wouldn't qualify for low-greenhouse-gas- emitting vehicles. I am not sure that we would want to put them in a low-greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicle at this point in time given the security needs and the needs for rapid acceleration in case there were some sort of an emergency. Again, there is nothing wrong with the intent. But in application, all you have to do is go out outside this Chamber right now and look at some of the vehicles that are strategically placed and look at the security personnel that are inside those vehicles. We need to be practical as we pass some of these legislative items that are under consideration today. This particular amendment, given the current technology and the state of the market, is not practical to be broadly applied. If there are low-greenhouse-gas-emitting vehicles, and again, I point out we don't have a current definition, but if there are, and a Member of Congress wants to lease them or purchase them for personal use or lease them for government use, there is no prohibition against that. But we certainly don't need to mandate it. Mr. Chairman, again, I would strongly oppose the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of the time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would be an open process with criteria, and all comers would get to submit an application and then a merit-based review of those applications?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. With that understanding, I would support the amendment. I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I guess for the time being I am in mild opposition.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And I may not be in opposition. I want to ask the distinguished author: these grants that would be established if the program were to be established, would they be granted on a competitive basis?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in doubt about the amendment. I would like to engage the author in a colloquy.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So this is not specified certain institutions?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that we have an additional 10 minutes on this amendment equally divided by the minority and the majority because we have lots of speakers on both sides.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and I yield myself 2 minutes. First let me say that we're not opposed to all renewable portfolio standards, but we are opposed to this one for a number of reasons. First of all, it only applies to investor-owned electric utilities. It doesn't apply to electric co-ops. It doesn't apply to municipal utilities. It just applies to investor-owned electric utilities. That's one of the reasons that the Edison Electric Institute is opposed to this amendment. It doesn't meet the standards that have been put out for renewable portfolio standards. It should apply to all utilities. This one doesn't. It should complement and not preempt State programs. This one doesn't. It should be technology neutral. This one is not technology neutral. It should provide credit for early action. This doesn't do that. It should allow for a national trading mechanism, including standardized monitoring, verification and distribution of credits. It doesn't do that. And it should include specific provisions assuring cost recovery for retail electric providers. It doesn't do that. It doesn't include nuclear as a renewable energy, and we think that it should. We think all hydros should be included. This one doesn't. So, it is certainly worthy of debate, and I support it being made in order to be debated on the floor, but I would hope that we would oppose it when it comes time for the vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my comments on the substance of the rule, I want to put to rest a rumor. My good friend Mr. Markey is hobbling around on crutches. My good friend Chairman Dingell is also hobbling around on crutches. It is not because of anything the Republicans have done on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We actually like each other. It is just one of those years I guess for being in the majority and the burdens of leadership, is all I can say. We have a rule before us today on an energy bill. There is not a lot you can say positive about it except that it is a rule. It is a modified closed rule. There are some amendments made in order. There is not a substitute made in order. Now, somewhere I have a press release from the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished Congresswoman Slaughter of New York, and I also have a press release from the distinguished Speaker, Speaker Pelosi of California, and they were talking about an open process, and when we had major bills on the floor, that it would be normal procedure for the minority to have a substitute. So we took them at their word. Denny Hastert, the former Speaker, and myself and Ralph Hall, the ranking member of the Science Committee, and Don Young, the ranking member of the Resources Committee, and Mr. Mica, the ranking member of the Transportation Committee, we prepared a comprehensive alternative substitute. We took it to the Rules Committee. We asked that it be made in order. Chairman Dingell of the Energy and Commerce Committee supported that it be made in order. The subcommittee chairman, Rick Boucher of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, to their credit, said that it should be in order. It is not in order. So you have an energy bill before you that doesn't have any energy. Nothing on coal to liquids, nothing on alternative fuels, nothing on oil and gas. There is a little bit of a cleanup section on loan guarantees for nuclear power plants, but that is kind of offset because you have to use Davis-Bacon to build them now. So, all in all, what we have got is a big bill. Congresswoman Blackburn pointed it out and held it up. But it is kind of a where-is- the-energy energy bill. If they had just made our substitute in order, you would have had a chance to actually have a bipartisan coalition come together on energy. There is a majority on the House floor on both sides of the aisle for a comprehensive energy package. We put it together in the last Congress, ``we'' being John Dingell and Joe Barton and others. We had an energy conference report that is now law that almost all of the Republicans voted for and almost half of the Democrats. Chairman Dingell signed the conference report, as did several other Democrats who are now chairmen and subcommittee chairmen in this Congress. So if you want lower gasoline prices, if you want more refineries built, if you want LNG facilities sited, if you really want to see alternative fuels jump-started in this country, don't look in that bill that we are going to vote on because of this rule. We will send you a copy of the Republican substitute which isn't going to be considered, and you will find all of those things in our substitute. I would hope that we could vote ``no'' on the rule, send it back to the Rules Committee, make in order the substitute, come out on a bipartisan fashion and actually vote on a comprehensive energy package. What is in the bill is mandatory building codes preempting the States, something called green energy which is good in concept but which would require every building in this country by 2050 be a consumer on a net basis of zero energy, regardless of the cost; a preemption of building codes for manufactured housing which will probably put the manufactured housing business out of business in this country. And, oh, yes, if you are a small mom-and-pop air conditioner repairman, you are probably going to be put out of business, too, because there is a standards section on appliance standards which requires more efficient, which is not a bad idea in concept of air conditioning, which is probably going to be very difficult to implement and put at risk many, many of our small mom-and-pop air conditioning repair businesses in this country. So what you have is no comprehensive energy package. Instead, you get a Federal Government, big brother, preempt the States, preempt the local governments on building codes and telling people what kind of light bulbs to use and what kind of air conditioners to use. This is not my grandfather's energy package. Please vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Then I will yield myself, I believe I have 5\1/ 2\ minutes, is that correct?