Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, $26 billion has been collected from our Nation's electricity consumers to pay for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a repository. $8 billion of that $26 billion already has been spent, leaving a balance of $18 billion in Nuclear Waste Fund. The Department of Energy has not yet proposed to use this fund for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, but they do believe that they have the authority under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act subject to appropriations. I strongly disagree with that interpretation. Consumers have paid for nuclear waste to be disposed of in a repository that should have been opened in 1998, 8 years ago. What they have not paid for is a program to encourage the development of nuclear energy in other countries, and they have not paid for a program to dispose of those other countries' spent fuel. My amendment would simply prohibit the Department of Energy from looting the Nuclear Waste Fund for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a program that is overly broad, premature and poorly defined. This money should be reserved for its designated purpose. If DOE wants to encourage the development of nuclear energy, then it is time to focus here at home. It is time to get Yucca Mountain open, so new nuclear plants can be built in our own country. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is my understanding that Mr. Dingell supports the amendment. It is also my understanding that the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee before us, Mr. Hobson, supports the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment also. It is obvious that people can have different opinions about projects, and the gentlelady from Nevada certainly has the right to have a difference of opinion about whether there should be a Yucca Mountain repository at all. I respect her opinion. Having said that, I don't think there is any question that we should allow the Department of Energy to educate on just what that repository would be if it were in operation. They have put up a Web site for children, and they have got some diagrams and some information on it that is of a very simple nature, but to my knowledge, nobody has questioned the accuracy or truth of what is on the Web site. So to say we are just not going to allow the Department of Energy to have an educational Web site for the children in Nevada, or any other area that wishes to find out, my guess is that most of the children that access this use it for term papers and papers in their classrooms that they have to do on nuclear power. So I would hope we would oppose the gentlewoman's amendment and let the Department of Energy continue its educational program. Whether you oppose or support the repository, we should at least want the facts out to our children and adults who wish to use that same Web site about just what exactly it is. So I oppose the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey amendment. This Ultra-Deep Program was authorized by the Energy Policy Act last summer, had bipartisan support. The Ultra-Deep is a research program that universities and independents and various national laboratories would participate in. This is to try to find the technology to allow us to go into waters primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, very deep waters, to develop the technology so that we can go in and drill in an environmentally safe fashion and recover what are estimated to be almost 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and almost 1 billion barrels of oil. It is primarily a research program. It is authorized at $50 million for 10 years, or a total of $500 million. This money would go to universities like the University of Texas, Texas A&M, in my great State, Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Massachusetts, in consortium with our national laboratories and the smaller independent oil and gas companies to develop technology in an environmentally safe fashion to develop those necessary resources for our energy future. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Markey amendment.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this amendment. The Energy Policy Act that we voted on in a bipartisan fashion last summer on this very floor changed the way that we have to permit our liquefied natural gas facilities and has given the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority, working with the States, to have the say in where to put these LNG facilities. This particular facility is a facility that would be located in the Northeast, offshore, in a remote area. It is the only proposal of its type that is currently before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. If we adopt this amendment, it would preclude the FERC from even reviewing the application. Now, the Northeast part of the United States needs energy. This particular facility, if permitted and if operated and if operated to maximum capacity, could supply up to 25 percent of the entire needs of the Northeastern United States in terms of their natural gas usage. To adopt this amendment right now simply says to that part of the country, We don't want any more energy. Mr. Markey of Massachusetts offered an amendment in committee to the bill, the energy bill that is now the law that says LNG facilities have to be located in remote areas. This facility would be located offshore in a remote area. If we are going to say no to this, we just might as well say we don't want any more facilities in the Northeast. I don't know how they are going to get energy, but if they can't get it from LNG and they can't get it from pipelines and they can't it from drilling and they can't get it from any other area, how are they going to get it? I strongly oppose this amendment. Let's at least let the FERC review the application. If they decide that it shouldn't be permitted, so be it. But let's at least let them look at the application.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, I was diagnosed with an inner ear infection and was unable to fly to Washington, D.C. ahead of all votes. As a result, I missed several votes on this day and ask that my statement be placed in the appropriate part of the record to reflect how I would have voted on the following roll call votes, had I been present. Wednesday, May 17, 2006: Nay: on agreeing to the Rahall (WV) amendment Failed by recorded vote: 189-236 (Roll no. 147). Strikes section 103 of H.R. 4200, regarding expedited procedures and certain exceptions to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Nay: On agreeing to the DeFazio (OR) amendment Failed by recorded vote: 184-240. (Roll no. 148). Strikes section 104 of H.R. 4200, regarding ``availability and use of pre- approved management practices'' and replaces it with a new section 104. Nay: On agreeing to the Inslee (WA) amendment Failed by recorded vote: 191-231 (Roll no. 149). Adds a new section to H.R. 200, stating that the Act shall not apply to any inventoried roadless area within the National Forest System. Nay: On agreeing to the Udall (NM) amendment Failed by recorded vote: 197-228 (Roll no. 150). Adds a new section to H.R. 4200, which would require the Secretary concerned (when implementing any pre-approved management practice or catastrophic event recovery project as described in the bill) to ``consider the effect of the practice of project fire risk and forest regeneration,'' and prohibits implementing the project unless the Secretary certifies that the practice or project will not increase fire-risk or decrease forest regeneration. Aye: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 243-182 (Roll no. 151). H.R. 4200, Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we now take up a second bill today to help improve our energy outlook, H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. Getting new refinery projects sited and permitted is a challenge to energy developers, especially to new market entrants who could offer alternatives to today's overworked refineries. The plain fact is that our country is losing its ability to refine oil into motor fuel. We are not only importing oil in ever-greater quantities, now we are importing gasoline by the shipload, too. The threat that we face today is not only to the price but also to the supply. If you tried to buy gasoline at one of the stations that have run out of gas lately, you will remember the gasoline lines of 1970s. High prices are a hardship, but dry pumps are a disaster. As I pointed out earlier today, at the 7-Eleven station at Glebe Road and Second Street in Arlington, Virginia, when I went by this morning to get some gasoline, there was no gasoline to be had. My Taurus that I am driving here in Washington is now literally on ``E'' and I hope I have enough to get to a station that has some gasoline later this evening when Congress recesses for the day. The last American refinery to be built from scratch in this country was over 30 years ago, and I believe it was in Louisiana. We have shut down more refineries in the last 30 years than we have refineries in operation today in the United States. Most of those are clustered in the gulf coast region, which, as we know because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, are in harm's way if hurricanes continue to batter that part of the country. Hurricane Katrina has taught us some very bitter lessons. One was do not put too many of your refinery eggs in one basket. This bill does nothing to dictate new refinery locations. Only developers and local State governments can do that. But it will make certain that the Federal Government does its part to eliminate some of the needless, in my opinion, bureaucratic delay if somebody wants to build a new refinery or expand an existing refinery. And, in my opinion, we need to do that. We consume about 21 million barrels of refined product in the United States every day. Our refinery capacity located domestically is less than 17 million barrels per day. That is a shortage of 4 million barrels a day in refining capacity for domestic demand for refined products from oil. Are we trying to take a backseat to environmental protection? Nothing of the sort. Under this bill, while the EPA will be given priority to coordinate and consolidate the permitting process, we are not backing down on one permit that is required at the State or Federal level. The EPA and the Department of Energy under this bill would work together to consolidate and streamline the permitting process so that you can get a decision in a timely fashion. The bill before us would put all agencies responsible for considering permitting applications for an oil refinery, a coal-to-liquid refinery, or a biofuel refinery, that they would have to sit down at the same table and hammer out a coordinated action schedule. They would put permitting schedules on parallel tracks and instill focus and teamwork in process. The schedule will appear in the Federal Register for all stakeholders to see; and if an agency drags its feet and throws everyone else off schedule, you can go to court and a court can order to get that particular agency back on track. They cannot tell the agency how to rule, but it can require that they meet the schedule that has been agreed to by all of the other State and Federal agencies that have permitting authority under the current laws. Public participation will go on exactly as it has in the past. All of the open records requirements will go on exactly as it has in the past. So we are not short-sheeting any environmental protection law under this pending legislation. All we are doing is saying, since we have a situation in the United States of America where we use 21 million barrels of refined products every day and we only have refining capacity for 17, it is about time that we do something to make it possible to build and expand existing refineries in the United States. It takes a million dollars per thousand barrels of capacity. So we need 4 million barrels of new refinery capacity. That is somewhere between $40 billion and $60 billion. Nobody in their right mind is going to put up that kind of money to expand refinery capacity when it takes as long as 10 years just to get the permit to build or expand existing refinery. The bill before us will make it possible to get a decision on the permits. The President has asked that we do it within 1 year. The bill before us does not set a 1-year timetable exactly, but we would hope that the consolidation process and the parallel-track process would shorten the permitting window. If we can get it down to a year or 18 months, I think the day would come very soon where we would see companies announcing new refinery projects, which would be good for the public in the form of lower prices. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) manage the rest of the floor time on the majority side.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this exchange of letters be included in the Record during today's debate on H.R. 5254. May 3, 2006. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter concerning H.R. 5254, a bill to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries. I appreciate your willingness not to seek a referral on H.R. 5254. I agree that your decision to forgo action on the bill will not prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or future legislation. Further, I recognize your right to request conferees on those provisions within the Committee on the Judiciary's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation. I will include our exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. Sincerely, Joe Barton, Chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) manage the remainder of the majority time on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5253) to prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil, and for other purposes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Americans are again seeing spikes at the gas pumps, with prices reaching over $3 a gallon all over the country. This morning, I went by the 7-Eleven at Second and Glebe Road in Arlington, Virginia, and there were no prices posted on the sign outside the station. I thought, oh, maybe they are giving gasoline away. No, they did not have any gasoline to sell at any price. We need to do something, not only to bring these prices down, but we need to do something to make sure that there is adequate gasoline supply available at every service station in the country that serves the American driving public. $3 a gallon gasoline may mean nothing to some people, but it sure means a lot to most of us and everything to the poorest of our society that really have to have gasoline to get back and forth to work and it is a big part of their budget. Soaring gasoline prices drain the budgets of the working families who rely on cars to get their kids to school and themselves to work. If the spike in gasoline prices are due to anything other than market conditions, consumers have a right to count on us, the government, for protection from these rip-offs. H.R. 5253, sponsored by Congressman Wilson of New Mexico, the bill that we are considering right now, prohibits price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil. While price fixing, collusion and other anti-competitive practices are currently illegal, there is no Federal statutory prohibition on the books against price gouging. Nobody has really defined at the Federal level exactly what it is yet. It is true that we all think we know what price gouging is when we see it, but that is not the sort of definition that a prosecutor can take to a judge or a jury. We are not here today saying something is just awful and somebody ought to stop it. We are here to put the gougers out of business, if there are gougers, and behind bars. Last October, the House passed anti-price gouging provisions in the Gas Act. Like the provision in that act, the Gas Act, the legislation before us today provides an explicit Federal prohibition on gasoline price gouging, treating it as an unfair trade practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It would also provide for additional enforcement in that it gives the United States Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission, the States attorney generals, the authority to enforce against price gouging at any time, not just in times of a major disaster. It provides for greater civil penalties and even criminal penalties in some cases for the most serious offenses. The legislation would ensure that the definition of price gouging promulgated by the FTC rule-making does not cover spikes in gas prices that are caused by market conditions. Committee hearings have demonstrated that when artificial regulations supplant normal supply and demand as the primary means of pricing a commodity, the result is market distortion and shortages. Ask those of us who were lining up for gas in the mid- and late 1970s. We are also not here today in pursuit of consequences, unintended or otherwise, that makes it tough for people to get to work and to school. Price spikes are a scourge, but dry pumps are a catastrophe. As I mentioned this morning, at Second and Glebe Road in Arlington, Virginia, there was no gas at any price at the 7-Eleven. I know the difference, and I will strenuously oppose any policies that choke off the flow of gasoline to drivers. We want to have effective enforcement against scams without interfering with the efficient functioning of the market. In my opinion, H.R. 5253 does that. I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of consumer protection legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this exchange of letters be included in the Record during today's debate on H.R. 5253. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, May 3, 2006. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Barton: In recognition of the desire to expedite consideration of H.R. 5253, a bill to prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. There are a number of provisions contained in H.R. 5253 that implicate the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Specifically, the bill contains increases in criminal penalties under title 18 of the United States Code, which implicate the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction under Rule X(I)(l)(7) (``criminal law enforcement''). The Committee takes this action with the understanding that by forgoing consideration of H.R. 5253, the Committee on the Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate conference on this legislation and requests your support if such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 5253 on the House floor. Thank your attention to these matters. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I have nothing but the utmost support for Mr. Regula and the appropriators. All the Members, the rank and file Members, the full committee chairman, the subcommittee chairman, but I want to disagree with his premises slightly. In most cases, a program like LIHEAP is funded from general revenue, and what Mr. Regula said is absolutely true, absolutely true. In this case, the budget reconciliation package for the fiscal year 2007 or the budget reconciliation package that we just passed, the Energy and Commerce Committee, on a bipartisan basis, worked to offset by saving in other areas of our jurisdiction so that we could plus-up LIHEAP by $1 billion. So the LIHEAP money that is before us today in the bill that is coming over from the other body has been paid for. Now, it is true as the gentleman from Ohio said that that money was supposed to be spent in fiscal year 2007, but it is also true that we need additional funds for 2006. And we are going to need additional funds, in all likelihood, in the warm weather States this summer, because of the expected heat. We have already had a record heat wave in Texas 2 weeks ago. It was 95 degrees. I will pledge to Mr. Regula and Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey and all the folks, the appropriators, that if we get the will of our leadership, I am willing to engage in another reconciliation package to find offsets for next year. I think that is only fair so that we help our appropriators. But we have a bill before us that if we affirmatively pass it like the other body has, it is going to go to the President's desk. It is going to be signed. There will be additional funds to help both the cold weather and the warm weather States. And I would hope that we would, while we have nothing but respect for Mr. Regula, that we would oppose his motion to oppose this bill. Pass it. Send it to the President so that we could get his signature and allocate these funds to the most needy of Americans in both the warm weather and cold weather States. I ask for a yea vote. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of S. 2320, legislation regarding the low-income home energy assistance program that we call by the acronym of LIHEAP. I believe that this is a good bill that will help all Americans, both in warm weather States and in cold weather States, but it will be particularly helpful to those in the warm weather States like Texas and places where summers can be difficult as the winters are in the Northern States. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 which this House passed, the other body passed and the President signed recently, included $1 billion for LIHEAP for fiscal year 2007. The moneys were offset by savings elsewhere in the titles written by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which I have the privilege to chair. The bill before us today spends the funds this year and splits the funds equally between regular and contingency funds. Mr. Speaker, I support this approach because the increase in regular funds in the bill would allow significantly more LIHEAP funds to flow to the warm weather States to help with cooling costs this summer. This has happened only once before in the 1980s. For Texans, which is the State that I come from, this will mean an additional $38 million this year, almost doubling Texas's LIHEAP funds. Overall, the funding increases in the bill before us will help both the warm weather States and the cold weather States in the winter. Warm weather States in the summer and the cold weather States in the winter. This is a good solution for all States, both warm and cool; and I hope that we will support the bill. We do have an unusual parliamentary procedure, Madam Speaker, that I think we need to bring before the body. The bill before us has already passed the Senate. If we pass it with no amendments, it will go to the President for his signature. The supplemental bill, which we have been debating until several minutes ago, also has some LIHEAP funding that is under a different formula mechanism, as I understand it. It is quite possible, if not probable, that that bill is also going to pass. If it does, we then have a situation which is somewhat murky, but, as best we can tell, whichever bill gets to the President last for his signature will be the bill that dictates the formula funding for this fiscal year. I put that into the Record simply because I think all Members of the Chamber need to know that. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2320) to make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to propound a parliamentary inquiry. I have no more requests for time, and I am going to close. I have a colloquy I want to enter into with the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. Can I use this time for that colloquy?

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment provides clarification on the scope of the bill in two important areas. First, the amendment clarifies that uniformity in notification requirements for warnings does not apply to dietary supplements. Additionally, during committee consideration of H.R. 4167, some Members expressed some confusion regarding the scope of subsection (f) of the bill. Today's amendment is designed to clear up that confusion and ensure that States can set tolerance levels for substances in food when the Federal Government has not. Section 2 of the bill extends national uniformity to all aspects of food adulteration. I support the premise of food adulteration and tolerance levels should be uniform throughout the country. If a substance in food is injurious to one State's consumers, it would be injurious to the people of all 50 States. Section 401(a) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act states a food is adulterated ``if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health.'' The FDA currently determines levels of substances in particular foods to ensure that the food remains safe. Foods above those levels are considered adulterated. The FDA is the world's gold standard for food regulation. If the agency has made a determination that a particular substance in food at a particular level is safe, then it should be safe to be sold in any State. However, if the FDA has not adopted a tolerance level for a substance in a particular food, nor affirmatively rejected a standard, then the State should be allowed to adopt its own standard when it deems necessary. My amendment clarifies the intent of the authors of the legislation by stating that when there is neither a Federal tolerance level for a substance in a particular food, nor has the FDA made an affirmative rejection of the need for a tolerance for a particular substance, then the State may establish and enforce its own tolerance standard. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.