Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the committee and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 481, I call up the bill (H.R. 3893) to expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Then you need to put the example in the statute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to try to respond to some of the comments that have been made. One comment that has been made is that the U.S. oil companies somehow control the market. We consume 21 million barrels a day of oil in this country. We only produce 8 million barrels a day. We import 1 million to 2 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. We import a million barrels a day from Venezuela. We import a half a million barrels a day from Libya. We import some oil, believe it or not, from Iraq. We import a million barrels a day from Mexico. One thing the U.S. oil companies do not do is control the market. They do accept a world market price. The reason the price of oil is high is because the world is using about 84 million barrels of oil a day and the world is producing about 84 million barrels of oil a day. Economies like China and India are growing at 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 percent a year. The amount of oil that China is going to need from the world market in the next year is expected to go up perhaps as much as a million barrels a day. So that is one reason the oil prices are high. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) comments that his price gouging amendment does something on natural gas. That is true. I would like to point out that every State PUC in the country already regulates the retail price of natural gas, so in that particular instance, I am not sure that his amendment would do much good. The pending bill does have a provision to get information from the gathering systems, the Gulf of Mexico for natural gas production, which is something that we do not have under current law. With that I would just ask us to vote for the rule.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out one thing to the body: There is one thing in this bill, one thing, that scores as a cost by the Congressional Budget Office. One thing. Do you know what it is? It is the Markey amendment that we accepted in committee to increase the home heating oil reserve from 2 million barrels to 5 million barrels. We accepted it because the gentleman from Massachusetts has a legitimate concern about the plight of people that need home heating oil in the northeast. We accepted his amendment to increase the reserve by 150 percent. That is the only thing in the bill before us that the CBO has scored. Now, is that a giveaway to big oil? Is that some kind of a payoff to industry? Or is that a legitimate need of the American people that we put into the bill because the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) asked for it, legitimately so, and it made sense, and we put it in the bill?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and, of course, in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 3893. I want to make a few comments first about the rule. We have made in order the Democratic substitute. My understanding is that the Democrat substitute is similar, if not identical, to the Democrat alternative that was put in play in the Committee on Energy and Commerce at our 16- hour markup last week. So point one is our friends on the minority side are going to get an opportunity to have their ideas on this issue addressed by the body and voted on; so that would be a very good reason for everybody to vote on the rule. Another good reason to vote for the rule is that the manager's amendment that has been incorporated into the base text takes into account many of the issues that were debated in the Committee on Energy and Commerce and many of the issues that were supported by our minority members of that committee last week, in particular the concerns about price gouging. The amendment that was adopted in committee on price gouging last week only referred to price gouging within a disaster area that had been declared by the President of the United States, and it only applied to gasoline and diesel fuel. The manager's amendment incorporates many of the ideas that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) on the majority side had in their alternative price gouging amendments. It would expand the authority of the President to allow a price gouging investigation outside of the disaster area. It would allow the FTC to prosecute price gouging outside the disaster area if they felt that there was price gouging. It also expands the jurisdiction of price gouging that would be under the control of the Federal Trade Commission from gasoline and diesel fuel to home heating oil. And I know there are very legitimate concerns in the Northeast and the Midwest this winter about the price and availability of home heating oil. So those are the reasons that I think we should vote for the rule. When it comes time to vote for the bill, obviously we are going to have a very spirited debate, which is what this body is all about. As we have that debate, there are several facts that I think we should keep in mind. Number one, since 1981 we have closed 176 refineries in this country. That means that we have in operation today 148. We have closed over half of the refineries in the United States of America in the last 30 years. That might be acceptable if the demand for their products was going down; but, in fact, the opposite is true. The demand for refined products in our Nation is rising every year, somewhere between 1 percent to 3 percent a year. If we convert that to barrels per day, that is somewhere between 250,000 to 750,000 barrels a day. Our Nation uses 30 billion barrels of oil every year. Our refinery capacity has simply not kept pace with our demand for the refined products. The consequences were clear for every American to see in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita when over half of our refineries shut down temporarily and about 25 percent of our oil and gas production shut down. In some parts of the country, the price of gasoline doubled and even tripled. Even with most of those refineries back on line, there is still enough refinery capacity disabled that the prices remain somewhere between 30 to 50 cents a gallon higher than they were before the hurricane. So quite simply, Mr. Speaker, it is time to invest in our energy infrastructure, and one of the critical components of that is our refinery capacity. This bill would do that without putting direct Federal dollars into it. It would do it by eliminating the red tape that we have to go through to get a refinery permitted. It would not eliminate or reduce any environmental law on the books today, but it would create an expedited process that a Governor of a State that wished to build a new refinery or expand an existing one could utilize. The bill would also make it easier to build some new oil pipelines. We have not built a new oil pipeline in this country in over 40 years. Again, the only two pipelines serving the Midwest and the Northeast, both of those were temporarily shut down because of Katrina. This bill takes some steps to do that. The bill would also reduce the number of boutique fuels, which currently is over 40, down to six. If the EPA thinks that that is practical to do so, that would make these fuels more fungible, more efficient to refine, and less expensive for the taxpayers, motorists of our country, to have to purchase. It also has some incentives and some emphasis on carpooling. Carpooling is not a real sexy high-tech issue; but if we could get one out of every three Americans to actually carpool on their way to and from work, we would save over 1 million barrels of oil per day, which, again, reducing the demand would reduce the cost of the gasoline. This is a good bill. It is a bill that both sides of the aisle can support. I would hope that we vote for the rule and then vote for the bill later this afternoon. I want to thank the distinguished Committee on Rules for bringing this rule to the floor, and I look forward to working with them on this issue and other issues in the future. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. The House today takes an important step in recovering from Hurricane Katrina. With the Gasoline for America's Security Act, we will make our country less dependent upon imports of gasoline and address high gas prices. The bill increases U.S. fuel supply by encouraging new refineries and reducing the number of boutique fuels around the country. We promote conservation through carpooling. We also outlaw price gouging for gasoline. The bill before us today is the product of a markup in committee that started at 8 a.m. and ended after midnight. It follows countless hearings over the last several years on gasoline markets, refinery capacity, and Clean Air Act issues. Our Nation is dangerously dependent upon tight refinery capacity and refined product imports. Hurricane Katrina hit in the wrong place at the wrong time, and American consumers are suffering. Offshore crude oil production was shut down. Refineries went down and are struggling to come on line. Oil and gasoline pipelines were without power and couldn't pump their product. We are paying the price at the pump and must take action. I keep hearing ``it doesn't matter how much crude oil we import if we don't build or expand refineries.'' Katrina proved that right when refineries were damaged or unable to move their product. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has not seen a new refinery built since 1976. The bill today encourages companies to come forward with proposals to build refineries. Many refiners have just given up because of an endless stream of red tape and the threat of nuisance litigation. The permitting process is overly cumbersome, and this bill fixes it. We want all States to be able to build refineries under an expedited permitting process. Any Governor can request that we cut through the red tape. The President can designate Federal lands to be considered for a refinery, even a military base that is being closed. If a State needs to see a pipeline built to service a refinery, we let the Governor request expedited permitting, too. The manager's amendment before us today improves the bill further from the bill reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It extends the geographic reach of our price gouging provision and increases penalties for violations. The manager's amendment also drops provisions that are very important policies but which I will save for another day. Nothing should stand in the way of this bill passing. If you want to increase the supply of gasoline, you need to do two things: Increase the supply of crude oil; and Increase refinery capacity. In the end, the issue before us is whether people who work for a living will get the gasoline they need to go to work, at a price they can afford to pay. Some seem to believe that Americans will float to work on a cloud of our good intentions. But they drive to work in cars and trucks that run gasoline. That could change some day, and I hope it does, but it will not change this day or this decade. We've known about the problem in refinery capacity for 30 years, and done nothing. Katrina and Rita demonstrated that the do-nothing policy is dangerous. Today we can start doing something about gasoline prices and gasoline supplies. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will help on crude oil prices, as will future legislation by the Resources Committee. We can increase refinery capacity today by voting ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on the GAS Act.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have had some catastrophes the last several weeks in our great Nation, but there is some good news. I am proud to report that the Sixth District of Texas has a new voter, at least in 18 years. Jack Kevin Barton was born to my sweet wife, Terri, last Thursday evening at 7:06. He weighs 10 pounds, 4 ounces. He is in good health and is politically unaffiliated.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, one of the features of H.R. 6 that will make a material difference in the protection of groundwater are the provisions making key reforms to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program. The lack of serious attention to leaking tanks has been one of the main causes of groundwater and drinking water contamination by fuel and fuel additives. I applaud our Subcommittee Chairman, Paul Gillmor, who authored the LUST provisions in H.R. 6 and that I have enthusiastically included in this legislation. In addition, I agree with and support his interpretation of these provisions, as outlined in his Extension of Remarks that appeared in the Congressional Record on July 28, 2005, on pages H6964-H6966. There are two specific provisions that deserve special mention. First, in order to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates, the reference to Section 9508(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code in the newly created section 9014(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act should be considered to mean Section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code in order to reflect changes made to Title XIII, Subtitle F, Section 1362. This Section of H.R. 6 creates a new Section 6430 at the end of Subchapter B of Chapter 65. It amends Section 9508(c) by striking the existing subsection 9508(c)(2) and renumbering subsection 9508(c)(1) as subsection 9508(c). As the chief author of this bill, it was never my intent to see LUST defunded and this instance should not be interpreted nor construed as nothing more than a drafting error since the historical construct and intent of the provisions in section 9014(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act are consistent with past versions addressing authorizations of appropriations under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Should it be necessary, I intend to immediately pursue statutory changes necessary to ensure proper use of collected transportation fuel taxes in the LUST program under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Second, Section 1530 on Title XV addresses additional methods to protect groundwater, including state requirements on the use of secondarily contained underground storage tank systems or conversely requiring states to use installer and manufacturer requirements. If a state chooses secondary containment, then any new installation of an underground storage tank that is within 1,000 feet of community water system or potable water well must be secondarily contained. In addition, any tank or piping that is replaced on an underground storage tank that is within 1,000 feet of a community water system or potable water well must be secondarily contained. Repairs to an underground storage tank system, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), do not trigger any secondary containment requirements and gasoline dispensers must also be addressed as part of the secondary containment strategy. If, however, a state chooses installer and manufacturer certification, as well as financial responsibility requirements, this section requires tank installers and manufacturers to follow professional guidelines for tank products or comply with one of the new statutory requirements that are similar to subsections (d) and (e) of 40 CFR 280.20. In addition, this section requires installers and manufacturers to maintain evidence of financial assurance to help pay corrective action costs that are directly relatable to a faulty tank part or installation. The lone exception to the financial assurance requirement is where a tank owner or operator, who already maintains evidence of financial responsibility under Section 9003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, is also the installer or manufacturer of the underground storage tank. I want to make clear that with respect to the financial responsibility option, the conference report references the existing financial responsibility authority contained in section 9003( d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act that applies to owners and operators, and as such, it is the intent of this legislation that all of the authorities and flexibilities contained in 9003( d) apply to underground storage tank installers and manufacturers in the same way that they currently apply to owners and operators of underground storage tanks. H.R. 6 also adds a new section 3022 to Title XXX of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The new section states: ``It is the sense of Congress that Federal agencies conducting assessments of risks to human health and the environment from energy technology, production, transport, transmission, distribution, storage, use, or conservation activities shall use sound and objective scientific practices in assessing such risks, shall consider the best available science (including peer reviewed studies), and shall include a description of the weight of the scientific evidence concerning such risks.''. For too long, documents and studies have been produced that do not reflect science, but rather a given policy bias mixed with elements of science. These documents and studies are then paraded forward as if they are risk assessments. This sense of Congress specifically finds such an approach unacceptable. I want to note that use of the weight of the scientific evidence is a specific recommendation in the 1997 Final Report of the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. On page 4 of that report the Commission states: ``A good risk management decision . . . is based on a careful analysis of the weight of scientific evidence that supports conclusions about a problem's potential risks to human health and the environment.'' On page 23 of that report the Commission states: ``Making judgments about risk on the basis of scientific information is called `evaluating the weight of the evidence.' . . . . It is important that risk assessors respect the objective scientific basis of risk and procedures for making inferences in the absence of adequate data.'' On page 38 of that report the Commission states: ``Risk assessors and economists are responsible for providing decision-makers with the best technical information available or reasonably attainable, including evaluations of the weight of the evidence that supports different assumptions and conclusions. It is important the Federal agencies conform their risk assessment practices to these principles.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2002, the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act, MDUFMA, was signed into law. I. background and need for legislation MDUFMA amended the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA, to authorize the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to collect user fees from manufacturers who submit certain applications to market medical devices. The premise behind initiating a user fee program for medical devices was to provide for more timely and predictable review of medical device applications, as well as to make the necessary infrastructure investments required to conduct the review of increasingly complex medical device applications in the future in a timely and predictable fashion. The FFDCA as amended by MDUFMA, authorizes FDA to collect user fees for certain medical device applications in FY 2006 and FY 2007 only if certain conditions are met. MDUFMA specifies that for FY 2006 fees may not be assessed if the total amounts appropriated for FY 2003 through FY 2005 for FDA's device and radiological health program did not meet certain targets. Appropriations for FY 2003 through FY 2005 for FDA's device and radiological health program were below the amount specified in MDUFMA. This legislation modifies those conditions, minimum appropriation levels for FY 2003 through FY 2005, to allow FDA to continue to collect user fees until October 1, 2007. User fees make possible investments in information technology infrastructure and human capital, more comprehensive training for reviewers, greater use of experts in academia and the private sector, enhanced project management, increased guidance development, expanded participation in globalization and standards setting activities, and increased interaction with industry both before and during the application review process. As medical device applications become progressively more complex, this investment will become ever more necessary to keep up with performance standards that FDA has thus far been successful in meeting. Keeping the device review program on sound financial footing is essential to ensure timely and predictable review of medical device applications. Providing the device review program with sufficient resources to fulfill its mission is critical to ensure that patients have access to the latest and most effective technology. The Committee also believes it is important to provide industry with predictable annual increases in application fees. Since the inception of MDUFMA, user fees for certain application types have increased dramatically from year to year. To address these concerns, H.R. 3423 will limit fee increases in FY 2006 and FY 2007 until MDUFMA sunsets on October 1, 2007. This legislation is designed to provide a transition until Congress reauthorizes the program in 2007. During deliberations on the reauthorization of the program the Committee on Energy and Commerce recognizes the need to consider comprehensive changes to the structure of the program to provide for stability and predictability in both application fees and fee revenues for companies that pay user fees and for the FDA.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. Specifically, I want to speak to the inclusion of the important vehicle safety provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We are a country of drivers, and unfortunately when you have 204 million vehicles on the road, there will be accidents. In fact, it is a sobering statistic that over 42,000 people died in auto accidents in 2003. It's a number that staggers the imagination. The good news is that every year more people buckle their seatbelts. And although more cars hit the road every year, and they come in all shapes and sizes, the accident rate continues to decline. Despite the advances, does anybody doubt that the cars we drive can be even safer? I don't. Vehicle safety laws and regulations fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee I chair--the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We were happy to work with Chairman Young and the Senate to include these provisions and reauthorize the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, in H.R. 3. By passing this bill, we are ensuring that NHTSA will create rules to mitigate the chances of vehicle rollover, occupant ejection, door locks, roof strength, and side impact. This bill also gives new car buyers more helpful safety information at the point of sale by requiring that ratings for front, side, and rollover crashes be posted on new vehicle stickers. Additionally, NHTSA will be tasked with studying such important problems as tire aging, vehicle backover technologies, and data collection. I believe these provisions will result in safer cars and trucks, and fewer deaths on our Nation's roads. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the H.R. 3 conference report.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), one of the distinguished subcommittee chairmen of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I call the body's attention to the quote above the podium from Daniel Webster that starts off: ``Let us develop the resources of our land.'' That is what this bill is all about. I do not recognize the bill that my friend from Massachusetts just talked about. I think America is a land of hope and opportunity. We are a land of can-do and optimism. America is not a land of fear. It is not a land where we want the government to tell us what to do and how to make choices. Our country is built on the premise that men and women, given the proper information, can make intelligent choices about what is best for them. This bill before us is based on that principle. We have strong environmental protection. We have strong protections against those that misuse the authorities, but this bill is based on the premise that we believe in private free market capitalism to develop the resources of this land in a cost-efficient fashion which benefits all of America. All of America. And there are numerous provisions in this bill to give incentives to renewable and clean energy resources. There are numerous provisions in this bill to increase the efficient use of those resources. But, yes, there are provisions in this bill that say it is okay to use clean coal; it is okay to build a new nuclear power plant in this country if we do it in the proper way with the proper permits and the proper inspections. And, yes, it is okay to build new LNG facilities to bring more natural gas into our great Nation if we need it and if it is done with the proper consultation with State, local, and Federal agencies. This is a very, very good bill. It is for America's future. Please vote ``yes'' for this bipartisan, bicameral, for-America bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Conference, I would like to clarify a point regarding section 1233, ``Native Load''. It is my understanding that section 1233 does not affect the Commission's authority under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act to ensure that rates are just and reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. refund authority As Chairman of the Conference, I would also like to clarify a point regarding section 1286, ``Refund Authority''. This section provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with authority to order refunds from overcharges on sales by large municipal utilities. I understand the phrase ``organized markets'', and possibly other related words following that phrase, may be ambiguous. I believe the FERC should carefully consider the purposes of this section when interpreting those words. That purpose is to protect all consumers from exorbitant electricity prices, regardless of whether the seller is a fully regulated public utility or, in the case of this provision, a publicly owned and only partially regulated utility. The impact and the injury from the exorbitant price is equally injurious and equally in need of redress. Therefore, I urge the Commission to give the words in question real meaning and to note that the Congress could have chosen other words, such as auction market or ISO or RTO managed market, to convey a more narrow and specific scope. ceiling fans As Chairman of the Conference, I want to address a drafting error in Section 135, ``Energy Conservation Standards for Additional Products.'' An incorrect section mistakenly included starts on page 101, line 14 and ends on page 102, line 4. Sentence (v)(l) was not agreed to and should be removed later in a technical correction. Also, the phrase ``Ceiling Fans'' should be removed where it appears in section (v). The proper language starts on page 107, line 8 and goes through page 112, line 10. This section (ff) is correct. Congressman Nathan Deal authored the original language, which did not receive consensus during negotiation of the conference report. Congressman Deal worked with Members of the Conference, industry representatives, and various environmental and energy efficiency advocates come up with some compromise language. I want to thank Congressman Nathan Deal for his hard work on this issue, and for bringing the mistake to my attention. I will work to correct this later. boutique fuels As Chairman of the Conference, I want to clarify some points regarding Section 1541, ``Boutique Fuels'', This provision is an amendment to section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act to limit the number of boutique fuels. First, it is my understanding that in section 1541 ethanol when blended into gasoline in a concentration of 20 percent by volume be considered a fuel additive. Second, in implementing this new provision, the EPA must determine the total number of fuels approved under 211 (c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004 and publish such a list in the Federal Register. The plain meaning of this provision would be that fuels initially approved by the Environmental Protection Agency before this date would constitute the ``upper limit'' on the number of fuels that may be approved at any one time in the future under the provisions of this section. Specifically, as long as a fuel was initially approved by the Environmental Protection Agency before September 1, 2004, the fuel may be sold and used pursuant to a State Implementation Plan and the provisions of 211 (c)(4)(C) as such provisions existed before the amendment of that section by the pending legislation. In addition, the amendments that we are enacting to section 211(c)(4)(C) do not require that a fuel actually be distributed or sold prior to September 1, 2004, only that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency initially approved the fuel as meeting the requirements for a waiver prior to September 1, 2004. This interpretation of section 1541 would also hold if the implementation date for the sale or distribution of any fuel previously approved by the Administrator prior to September 1, 2004 was later changed at any point in time. The amendments made today to section 211(c)(4)(C) would not prevent this sale or distribution from occurring nor impose any additional requirements or limitations on the implementation of matters related to the use of this previously approved fuel or a program providing for its use. Finally, the changes to existing law regarding waivers for fuels approved as part of a State Implementation Plan only apply to those fuels which were not previously approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency before September 1, 2004. Programs such as the Texas Low-Emission Diesel program are not affected by the provisions of section 1541 even though a later State Implementation Plan revision or action by the State or federal Environmental Protection Agency may have revised the beginning date of sale of the fuel or other matters related to the implementation of the fuel program.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 6.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that although we love the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and his visuals, it is like the ``I Love Lucy'' reruns. We have seen them before. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time I control, which I believe is 1\1/2\ minutes, have an additional 1 minute added to that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a request of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). Could the gentleman yield me 1 minute of his time, if possible; or do you have your speakers all utilized?