Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentlewoman is correct.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentlewoman is once again correct.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentlewoman is correct, for the third time in a row.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We always thank the gentlewoman for her inquiries.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Castle-Markey amendment, and I wanted this behind me. I do not oppose this at all except that the color is burnt orange, which is the University of Texas, and this is Aggie Muster Day, April 21, when Sam Houston and his Texans routed the Mexicans at the battle of San Jacinto and won independence for my great State. So this is a sacred day in Aggie history, and that is the only thing I object to. When I look at this, what I see is energy for America, I see security for America, and I also see safety. Admittedly, it is a big boat and it looks threatening, I will grant that; but we already have existing provisions in law to make sure that these terminals that are already in existence are as safe it is possible to be. I am not aware of any major accident, and I would stand corrected if the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) or the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) says there has been, but I am not aware of that. This particular section of the bill that is before us simply says that we are going to need more LNG facilities, which is shorthand for liquefied natural gas; and we have tried to craft in the guarantee that the State has a stronger role, not a weaker role. We do not preempt any State permit. If the State of Massachusetts or Delaware or California or any other coastal State, if through their own permitting process they make the decision that the terminal should not be built, it will not be built. What this provision does is, if a State agency has not made a decision, has refused to make a decision, and one of the parties goes into the district court here in Washington, D.C., and asks that a decision be made, that will expedite the decision-making process. For the first time, if this provision of the bill were to become law, we would give the States a guarantee to actually go in and inspect these facilities under Federal law, not under State law, but under Federal law. They do not have that right now. I have told the gentleman from Delaware, and I will tell the gentleman from Massachusetts, if we defeat this amendment and we go to conference with the existing language and we need to in some way strengthen the States' rights end of this provision, I am going to be for that. I come from a coastal State. I come from a coastal State. I want the safest possible. That is why we have the increased State guarantee in the bill, because I insisted upon it; but we cannot stick our heads in the sand and say we do not need more LNG facilities. We need more energy for America. I wish we could produce it within our shores, but it does not look like that is going to be possible. We are going to have to go offshore. We have about 30 pending permits for LNG facilities right now under consideration, and what this language does in the bill is give an expedited provision that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the lead agency to expedite the Federal part of it. I believe this actually strengthens the State role. So I would respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on the Castle-Markey amendment, and then what we need to work on in the conference we will work on.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Udall amendment would strike from the energy bill all funding for research and development into environmentally sensitive uranium mining and reclamation technologies. Uranium mining is necessary for the production of enriched uranium that is necessary to create nuclear fuel used in nuclear power plants. The bill before us today paves the way for an expansion of the domestic nuclear industry, and we need to authorize funding to develop more environmentally sensitive uranium technologies to feed the growing demand for nuclear power. Section 631 of the bill creates a uranium mining research and development program to improve uranium mining technologies. This important funding supports advanced uranium mining technologies that can allow mining operations to be conducted with greater environmental sensitivity. Section 631 would also authorize funds for the development of new environmental cleanup technologies for the remediation of closed uranium mines. Nuclear power is here to stay, and we need to support a strong domestic uranium industry. Section 631 provides funding for environmentally sensible uranium mining to support a growing nuclear industry. With respect to the gentleman from New Mexico's (Mr. Udall) specific concerns for uranium mining issues in his home State, I would like to point out the provision specifically excludes New Mexico from receiving any funding under this provision. So I am not sure exactly what his objection could be at this point, at least with respect to his home State. I would encourage my colleagues to vote against the Udall amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, it is in Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Briefly, before I yield time to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), just to make one major point, we were not aware that this amendment might come up today. We were not even told it could until we walked on the floor and saw the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). That is point number one. Point number two, when we huddled at the leadership level to decide what to do about this, I was given several parliamentary options to try to defeat any kind of an effort to have a substantive debate, and I chose not to do that. I made the decision that if the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and her allies were smart enough to figure out a way to use the House rules to get her vote up, she ought to be given that chance to do it. And I had several opportunities to gimmick the rules up and do complicated parliamentary procedure that would have obfuscated the issue. So I do not want to come onto this floor and be told that somehow I have tried to be unfair or prevent an honest debate. I will be honest, I would rather not have this debate right now. But we are going to have it, and let us have a substantive debate. I am fine on that. The second point I want to make is, I am not going to disparage what the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) just said, but when we were debating these amendments back in the early 1990s, we had numerous instances where he went on record saying that MBTE was something that should be included as an oxygenate. He even offered an amendment in committee to increase the oxygenate requirement to 3 percent. If I am correct, then I will let him look at the statements and tell me that they are incorrect. I am for a fair and open debate.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to read a quote and have the gentleman tell me whether he thinks he said this or not. I quote from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman): ``This level of oxygenation, required in the Clean Air Act amendments, is high enough to achieve most of the benefits of oxygenated fuels but low enough to allow several different oxygenates to compete for market share. The leading oxygenates are ethanol and ethers made of ethanol, ETBE; or methanol, MBTE.'' That is attributed to the gentleman as a direct quote. Is that correct?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy). (Mr. MURPHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on his visual. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order and engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will yield 1 of my 2 minutes to the gentleman if he wants to close on the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment not because I oppose environmental justice, but because I do not think this amendment is necessary. The amendment does not codify existing powers in the Federal Government. It would change the way that they are currently operating. The current environmental justice programs are in no danger of being repealed. The subject of the amendment, Executive Order 12898, is already in effect and requires each Federal agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental affects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. In my opinion, this amendment is a step backward in allowing minority and low-income communities the opportunity for individual choice and economic freedom in creating jobs and encouraging development in these low-income areas that are in such desperate need of revitalization and economic growth. More environmental restrictions and quotas, that would result from this amendment, will only continue the plight of these economically disadvantaged communities by discouraging further development. EPA already has several offices that have responsibility for overseeing and instituting environmental justice programs, including two specific ones, the Office of Environmental Justice and a national advisory committee that gives national focus to environmental justice concerns in all environmental protection programs at the EPA. So I know it is a well-intentioned amendment, but it is not necessary because we have existing executive orders. The agencies are implementing it. And I think this would actually do more harm than good. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my support for the amendment. I think it helps the bill. I would encourage my friend from Washington, as he once again gets another amendment in the bill, to consider voting for final passage. He is going to have more stuff in the bill than I am. So at some point in time the weight of the evidence is that he should be supportive of the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, to close the debate, I yield the remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. First, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there are so many ways to oppose this particular amendment that I am at a little bit of a loss as to which way to start in opposition, but I think I will start first on the procedural opposition. This is basically the same vote and the same amendment that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) had a vote on yesterday on a point of order before consideration of the rule. That was defeated overwhelmingly, in the neighborhood of 231-188 or something like that. To give her credit, she has come back and she and her allies have found a way to use the rules to come up and get a second bite of the apple. But my first line of opposition is that if you voted against it yesterday, you ought to vote against it today. Secondly, I want to talk about the concept that is embodied in the Capps amendment, that somehow this is an unfunded mandate. What she is seeking to strike is a provision in the underlying bill which was in the bill last year that says you cannot de facto go in and in an existing lawsuit state that MTBE, because it is MTBE, or also ethanol, is defective because of its chemical composition. You have to prove that it is defective, not just say that, because it is what it is. It is similar to saying this piece of wood that this table is made of is defective because it is wood. That is a very limited safe harbor provision. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) would strike that. CBO last year looked at this language and said there is no unfunded mandate. In fact, several years ago in the medical malpractice legislation where we capped damages, capped awards, CBO said that is not an unfunded mandate. But this year the CBO analysts in question looked at it and said, while the evidence was difficult to ascertain, it could be construed as an unfunded mandate. The lawsuits that have been filed and could be filed are going to be filed on a wide range of issues. Any particular court and any particular jury may find in this case or that case and we are not precluding that, but to somehow say that now because if the safe harbor provision were to become law that you would actually have to prove MTBE was defective, that somehow that is an unfunded mandate to me is just beyond the pale. I have got several court cases that have already been considered on the defective product situation with MTBE, and I would like to read those right now. In a New Jersey case, a court ruled that MTBE was an oxygenate that Congress contemplated would be used frequently. Therefore, the court found: ``Because Congress required that gasoline include an oxygenate and specifically designated that MTBE would be one of the most common and effective oxygenates, this court concludes that gasoline containing MTBE cannot be deemed a defective product.'' A California court, the State the gentlewoman hails from: ``Federal law permits the use of MTBE, and the supremacy clause precludes State tort liability from attaching based on the mere use of this allowed option.'' The court reasoned that: ``Permitting plaintiffs to pursue their common law claims conflicts with the reformulated gasoline and oxygenated fuels provisions of the Clean Air Act and the regulatory actions taken under it.'' We have other court cases that we can put into the Record. We have got several lines of opposition here. The first line is that we have already had the vote. We have the second line that this is not an unfunded mandate because we are not precluding what States can or cannot do in the future. And under current law, the cleanup costs are borne 96 percent by the parties, not borne by the States. You have to have an orphaned site before the State would even come into it. So we think the allegation that it is unfunded is spurious on the measure. And, lastly, on the item of whether MTBE is defective as a product just because it is MTBE, it has clearly been ruled in several cases, and common sense would dictate, that something that is made properly and used properly and actually cleans up the air, there is no way that can be a defective product. I am giving Members three lines of reasoning to vote against the Capps amendment, and I would hope that when the vote comes that we keep the language in the bill and we are able to go to conference with the Senate and continue to work to find a compromise if we need to do more to expedite the cleanup in those States that have MTBE contamination. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).