Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in respectful opposition.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have not built a new refinery in the United States since 1976. Now, we have expanded some existing refineries, but we have closed dozens, if not hundreds, of small refineries. We are importing refined product because we do not have the ability to meet our needs for refined petroleum products with our existing refinery base. Our refineries are operating at 95 percent capacity every day. Now, this amendment that the gentlewoman from California wants to strike would say that we are going to go out and do an inventory of existing refinery sites that have been closed or manufacturing sites that have been closed where there is high unemployment, high unemployment. So you have to have two things. You have to have an existing refinery site or a manufacturing site that is no longer in use, and you have to have very high unemployment. We think there are around 100 of those sites. I think the exact number is 96; and under this part of the bill, if a community wants to solicit a refinery, we set up an expedited procedure that is led by the Department of Energy where you can go and request all the number of permits. We do not waive any permit. We do not eliminate any permit. We are not mandating that anybody has to seek one of these, but I think it would be a positive to build 5, 6, 7 million barrels of new refinery capacity in this country using state-of-the-art technology so that we can meet 100 percent of our refined product needs, take some load off the existing refinery base, and, yes, create some jobs in America. I think that would be a good thing, not a bad thing. So I strongly oppose this amendment and would encourage all the other Members to oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I wish I could find a way to say ``yes.'' Unfortunately, I cannot. I think the underlying bill which has an authorization to increase the crude Strategic Petroleum Reserve and build it out to a billion barrels and also try to build some new refineries in this country, if we take those two things together, we will have the same effect as the gentlewoman's intent, which is to create the ability, if we ever need the SPR, to move the large amounts more quickly and to refine them more quickly and thus disrupt the American economy as little as possible. I continue to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds of my minute and a half, which was Mr. Flake's minute and a half, to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am in support of the Abercrombie amendment and hope that the House accepts it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I strongly encourage the majority to support it, and we will work with the gentleman in conference to maintain it if he will promise to work with his Hawaiian Senators to get them to do that also.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to close on her amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we have shown today, and we certainly have shown in committee, that the majority is looking for reasons to say yes to as many ideas and amendments as Members have, whether in the minority or the majority. So I have had every reason to try to find a way to say yes to the gentlewoman of Ohio's (Ms. Kaptur) amendment; but unfortunately I cannot, because it is just not practical. Oil in the crude state lasts indefinitely. You can store it underground for long periods of time. And if we ever need it, pump it out, refine it, and use it. These alternative fuels that the gentlewoman from Ohio's (Ms. Kaptur) amendment would refer to are refined and they have a much shorter shelf life, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days. If we accept the gentlewoman's amendment, it would become law. What we would create is a situation where we would be refining product that we would be putting into reserve that you would continually have to be changing. And so what you would do is just create another intermediate step in the marketplace because the strategic refined reserve would really never be permanent. You would always be changing it. In the case of ethanol, today ethanol is not put into the gasoline until it is ready to go to the service station because of its very short shelf life. So with ethanol you mix it with the gasoline and then you send it to the station, and then it is consumed immediately. So the ethanol reserve, I am not even sure if you could do that or not. So the intentions of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) are certainly in the right direction, but this is an idea that is just not practical. I wish it were. If I thought it were, we would try to find a way to accept it, but I do not think it would be helpful, and so, reluctantly, I oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to say that we are supporting all forms of energy. We accepted amendments in the committee for animal methane, livestock methane. This is a pilot program. It is a nominal amount of dollars. I honestly do not know whether sugar cane will be economical to turn into ethanol, but it is well worth the 3-year pilot program to see if it is. I actually hope that it is. I would want it to be successful. But this is a very, very small, nominal program. And I would also point out there are not many States that can grow sugar cane. Hawaii would be one. I guess Florida would be one. Perhaps Louisiana. Maybe even Texas, although I do not think we have. So I would hope we would support the Abercrombie amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, with that reservation, the majority accepts the gentlewoman's amendment and urges a mild ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a distinguished subcommittee chairman. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), another distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to qualify in opposition. And I say ``qualify'' because when I looked at the amendment several days ago, it appeared to me to be a reasonable amendment. Since the gentlewoman was born in Texas, it gave me another reason to say yes. And since she is a member of the Committee on Rules and every now and then I will need a vote from the minority on the Committee on Rules, there was another reason. So we had lots of reasons to say yes, and so we did say yes. Then we found out that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, had some concerns about it, and the General Services Administration had some concerns about it. And the concern is that these intermittent escalators sometimes cause a safety problem because they start and stop too soon and they apparently break down more frequently than continuous-operation escalators. So here is my proposal to the gentlewoman: I am willing to accept it with the understanding that we are going to work with the General Services Administration and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) to see if there is a meeting of the minds between now and conference. We will go into the base bill. It will be a House position when we go to conference. But if for some reason we cannot satisfy these safety concerns, since I am probably going to be the chairman of the conference, I would reserve the right to drop it in conference after consultation with the gentlewoman if we cannot work out some of these concerns. But for tonight we would take it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Then right underneath that, we are talking about administration, penalties, enforcement and preemption on efficiency standard for appliances. After that paragraph I just read, then you go back and just out of the blue, it says, ``In determining whether to defer such acquisition, the Secretary shall use market-based practices when deciding to acquire petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.'' Again, I am going to assume that this was a cut-and-paste effort and something got left out and that should be in another place. Am I correct or incorrect on that?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. In the beginning, he has some efficiency standards. He goes through and sets some specific standards on specific appliances, dishwashers and things like this. But on page 21, there is something beginning on line 16 that I just do not understand and I just want to see. The gentleman from New York may not understand it either, because he may not have had much advance work in drafting this. The heading is Administration, Penalties, Enforcement and Preemption. It says, ``Section 345 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S. Code 6316, is amended by adding at the end the following.'' It just goes down and says if a State wants to set up a specific standard, that is fine, and that State standard will not be preempted until the Federal standards established under this bill take effect on January 1, 2010. I understand that. He is saying the States can set a standard, but once the standards in the bill kick in on January 1, 2010, the Federal standard preempts. That is a policy debate; we can argue that back and forth. The next section, I do not understand, subparagraph 3, line 16: ``If the California Energy Commission adopts, not later than March 31, 2005, a regulation concerning the energy efficiency or energy effective after, the standards established under section 342(a)(9) take effect on January 1, 2010.'' What does that mean? While the gentleman is trying to get me an answer, this is the kind of thing that if we had this in regular order in a markup, there would be counsel at the desk and members of the committee of jurisdiction would ask the counsel to explain it; and if it is a drafting error, then that could be corrected. If it is not a drafting error, then at least the members know. I am assuming that is a drafting error, but it may not be.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Passage of this comprehensive bill will ensure a more affordable, environmentally friendly energy supply. America's prosperity and national security are at stake. The bill before us today is a balanced bill and it is a bipartisan bill. It will have lower energy prices over time for consumers, it will help spur our economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and take unprecedented steps to promote greater energy conservation and efficiency. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, among other things, improves our Nation's electric transmission capacity; promotes a cleaner environment with new innovations on alternative power sources, the Clean Cities authorization, and the hydrogen fuel cell car program; it promotes clean coal technologies, provides incentives for renewable energies, such as biomass, wind, solar and hydroelectricity. The bill would provide leadership in energy conservation by establishing new mandatory efficiency requirements for Federal buildings, and expands the Energy Star program to tell American consumers what products save the most energy. The bill also provides an efficient approval process for siting new liquified natural gas facilities. It would, for the first time, give an expedited procedure, hopefully in brownfield areas and high- unemployment areas, for expanding or building some new refineries. We have not built a new oil refinery in this country for the past 30 years. I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but simply let me say at the beginning of the debate that it is time for an energy policy for America. It is time for the House of Representatives to say we want a strong economy based on the world's best and most open free market for energy supplies, and also to put some incentives in for conservation. I strongly support the bill, and I look forward to the debate we are about to begin.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the rule. It is a good rule in spite of some of the comments that been made about it. The process has been fair. I want to make a few very quick remarks. The committees of jurisdiction each held an open markup. The committee that I chair, the markup, including opening statements, took 3\1/2\ days. We considered every amendment that was offered; and we accepted, I would say, 40 percent of the amendments. Many of those were accepted from Members of the minority of my committee who ended up voting against the bill; but because I felt it improved the bill, we took the amendments enthusiastically. Eighty amendments were offered at the Committee on Rules yesterday. I believe that the Committee on Rules has made in order about 30 of those. It may be a little bit fewer than that, but a large number of amendments have been made in order, including a substitute by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We accepted amendments on the floor on some of the more controversial areas in the bill. My good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), was speaking earlier about the LNG siting provision. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) will have an amendment on the floor sometime tomorrow to strike that provision. I happen to think the LNG siting provision is a good part of the bill. We are importing more net liquefied natural gas, and we are going to import more. We need to find areas to site those facilities. It is interstate commerce, so the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does have primary jurisdiction; but the bill before us says the States shall be involved, not may be, shall be. The bill before us has a specific list of conditions that have to be considered, including population density and alternative siting. The bill before us has a first-time-ever guarantee that the States have the automatic right to go in and inspect these facilities for safety conditions. We have worked very hard on that LNG siting provision to make sure that States are very involved; but ultimately, on the final decision, as it should be because this is interstate commerce, the FERC is the one that makes the final decision. So, Mr. Speaker, I know this is a contentious bill. It has been before the House each of the last two Congresses. We have passed it. The last Congress we passed the conference report, but the Senate did not bring it up. Today or tomorrow, we want to pass this bill. We want to go to conference with the Senate later this spring, bring back the conference report and put a bill on the President's desk to help our energy future. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule. It is a good rule and fair to all involved.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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.