Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee. (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, I tell the distinguished gentleman from California, my good friend, that we can discuss this further at conference and I look forward to that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, Mr. Chairman, simply to say that the gentleman has cleared this with the majority. It would change the numerical number of cities that would be eligible, but it would not change the total funding, and this is an acceptable change, and we are very willing to accept it. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am actually supportive of the amendment, but I had to apparently say I was opposed to get the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It adds to the bill. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) offered a similar amendment in markup that was adopted. This goes further and establishes the program at the EPA. The only concern, well, not concern, but I need to let the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee know that this authorizes the program, it does not appropriate the funds, and it would be subject to appropriations; but certainly, authorizing the program so that we can go to the Committee on Appropriations and request funding. There is no question, it is without question that hybrid technology extends our available full fuel resources and that it is a coming thing, and I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering this amendment, and I do strongly support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, with all due respect, this bill came out of my committee. I mean, read it. Would I put something in there or approve something, or is there some secret language, some code word that the gentleman and I, either one, do not know? ``No activities funded under this section may be carried out in the State of New Mexico.'' Boom. Now, I am not saying the Congressional Research Service did not tell the gentleman what he read in the Record. The gentleman is an honest man, but this is the bill. I mean, the gentleman understands that. Sure. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), to close.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is only a page amendment, section 631. It authorizes $10 million each year for 2006, 2007, 2008. It would create cooperative cost-sharing agreements between the Department of Energy and the domestic uranium producers, and these cost-sharing agreements would be competitively selected demonstration projects. So it is a 3-year $10 million per-year, openly competed demonstration program to try to find new ways to improve mining technologies with the appropriate environmental restoration technologies. But the part that I want to read into the Record is, and I have great respect for the Congressional Research Service, but it very plainly states in section C of section 631, and I am going to read this verbatim: ``Limitation. No activities funded under this section may be carried out in the State of New Mexico.'' That is the plain language of the section: ``No activities funded under this section may be carried out in the State of New Mexico.'' Now, the gentleman from New Mexico has every right to offer an amendment to strip the section if he has some concerns generically about its impact nationally; but if he has any concern about this program being used in his home State, it is not going to happen, because it very clearly states in this amendment, this section C of the section 631, it cannot happen.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. My parliamentary inquiry is that that is not an amendment that we knew and precleared under the Committee on Rules.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam 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. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. And I would simply say that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has offered an amendment that would authorize $20 million for the administrator of General Services Administration to proceed with the Sun Wall design project, and the majority is prepared to accept it and work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to maintain it in conference with the Senate. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition. The Acting Chairman (Mr. Simpson). The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for 15 minutes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from California is a member of the committee of jurisdiction and since he offered this in committee and it was made in order by the Committee on Rules to be offered, even though he was somewhat tardy in arriving, would a unanimous consent request, if made and not objected to, give him the right to offer the amendment now?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object, and I will not object.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, of all the things to come on the floor of the House of Representatives and claim with a straight face that we should have a debate about, claiming that what is in the bill with regards to the MTBE is an unfunded mandate, is one of the biggest whoppers I can imagine, with all due respect. I want to read some of the language of the bill, and I have to put my reading classes on to do it. We specifically authorize in the bill additional funding, $50 million, to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates. It is in the bill, a specific allocation of $50 million to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates. The Leaking Underground Storage Trust fund has a balance right now of $2 billion. The bill before us dedicates some of that balance specifically to go out and inspect existing underground storage tanks, to enforce if those inspections find that there is a leak, and to fund improvements in the operation of these underground storage tank programs. It is in the bill. That is not an unfunded mandate. If anything, it is a specific allocation in the bill to enforce the program that we have, to put additional funds into it and to make sure that we prevent the problem. That is funded. That is not unfunded. Now, the real debate is not whether it is an unfunded mandate or not. The real debate is what we should do about MTBE; and as my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), has already pointed out, we can have a legitimate policy debate about that. The bill allows States that want to ban MTBE to do it. That is not mandating the States. That is telling the States, you want to use MTBE in your gasoline supply to get cleaner air, fine. You do not want to use it, that is fine, too. The bill also has a provision in it that over the course of the next, I think, 10 years, depending on some scientific studies and various things, there could be a point in time that we have a Federal ban on MTBE. It may not, it may, but it could happen. People forget in the 1991 Clean Air amendments we required an oxygen amendment to make the gasoline burn cleaner in nonattainment areas. There were two ways to do that at the time: use ethanol or use MTBE. There was not a mandate to use MTBE, but there was a requirement in nonattainment areas you had to do something in terms of putting more oxygen in the gasoline to make it burn cleaner. Most of the market went to MTBE. We then found out, and we knew before the fact actually, that if the gasoline that had MTBE leaked out into the environment that the MTBE would disassociate a little bit quicker because it was more missable, and it would get into the water supply, or water table, and it causes an odor. So there have been a number of lawsuits. The gentlewoman mentioned two of them, in Lake Tahoe, one in California, where there have been out-of-court settlements for several millions of dollars because of that odor. That did not establish that MTBE is a defective product. This bill does have a safe harbor, not just for MTBE but also for ethanol, that by definition of the product, the chemical composition, that it is not defective; but if you use it negligently, you can be sued upon it. If the right warnings are not with it, you can be sued. There are all kinds of reasons. You can sue and win, as has been shown; but that does not mean that it in and of itself is defective. Interestingly enough, in one of the cases the gentlewoman from California quoted, the amount of the settlement was less than the legal fees that the law firm representing the community in California claimed. So that community is now suing their law firm, saying you ripped us off, you are asking for more money to settle the suit than we got to clean the water up.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am supportive, but my understanding is that the gentleman from Arizona is going to be nonsupportive.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Hopefully, the gentleman from Hawaii and I, together, can overcome him. I do support the gentleman's amendment at the appropriate time.