Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. At any time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a parliamentary inquiry. Before we go to the gentleman from Michigan, when it comes time to vote, are we going to vote on the Rogers amendment to the Johnson amendment, and then if it is amended, we will vote on the Johnson amendment; is that correct? There will be two votes, Rogers to amend Johnson and then Johnson, either amended or unamended, depending on how the Rogers amendment fairs?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will continue to yield, there will be a provision in the conference report that comes back when we report the conference out.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip and a member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, on the Oberstar amendment, even though he is not here, that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) be allowed to offer it, and if he will on the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) behalf, I will accept it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If I could reclaim my time, the gentleman from Michigan is a valued member of the committee and has several amendments that were accepted, that are in the bill. I hope he is at least in a quandary about maybe voting for the bill at some point in time, although he has not yet done so. But as he just pointed out on the underlying bill, we do encourage States, I think the language is, encourages the States to have such a ban, but we do not have the Federal preemptive ban that the gentleman from Michigan wanted. Mr. Chairman, in summary, I oppose this amendment. I think we have pointed out a number of flaws in it. I would hope at the appropriate time the body would vote it down. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I agree with that statement, also. The principles the gentleman has outlined should be part of the solution. I am confident that our work will adequately satisfy New Hampshire and other contaminated States with problems similar to his State's. Madam Chairman, I will just say that we are in opposition to the Dingell substitute and would urge a ``no'' vote at the appropriate time. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from New Hampshire. He and I have been working toward a solution to the contamination problem in New Hampshire and across the Nation. If he is not satisfied with the solution thus far, then I am not satisfied with it either, and I agree with him that more must and will be done. With the time that we will have to continue our already significant progress, I appreciate his commitment to reach out to other Members with similar problems like his. Committee staff and I stand ready to assist in every way and are fully committed to resolving the problem before the bill is presented to the President for enactment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I do not think it is a surprise that I rise in strong support of the Barton manager's amendment, since I am the Barton who authored the amendment. But I just want to tell my good friend from Massachusetts, whom I just listened to extremely closely as he told his tale of woe about his amendment being accepted in committee and not accepted in the manager's amendment, we found out, as we went to implement it, that there were some things we did not understand about his amendment. Now, I am sure the gentleman explained it clearly and concisely, and I was probably listening to one of my staffers and probably just did not hear his explanation, but it was actually retroactive in application. Madam Chairman, had we accepted it and put it in the manager's amendment, there would have been an immediate outcry to implement some standards that were not yet implementable because it would have been retroactive. That is the primary reason it is not in the manager's amendment. As we go to conference, we will continue to work with the distinguished gentleman, and we probably can find some way to get some part of it in in the conference. But that is the primary reason that particular amendment is not in the manager's amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on both sides of the aisle for the way we prepared this legislation. It was reported out of committee 39-16 last Wednesday night after a 3\1/2\-day markup. Every amendment that was offered that wanted to be voted on and considered was. Most of the members who have spoken in opposition to the bill on the floor from the Committee on Energy and Commerce had amendments that were accepted in committee. I think every member that has said something negative about the bill actually got something in the bill, and yet it was not exactly the way they wanted it in terms of the total package, so they are obviously reserving their right to vote against the bill. It is a fair and balanced bill. It helps the existing conventional resources. It also has a title on conservation. It will reform our electricity grid. It looks to the future in the hydrogen fuel initiative and the clean coal technology. While it is not a panacea, it is a bill that is right for this country. It is right to pass it at this time and send it to the other body so that we can go to conference later this summer and put a bill on the President's desk. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on final passage after all the amendments have been debated tomorrow afternoon.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), another distinguished subcommittee chairman. (Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Again, I oppose the Solis amendment. I was at the White House earlier this week and was briefing the President on the energy bill that came out of the various committees; and when I mentioned this particular element, which I consider to be an important element of the bill, something that we did not have in last year's bill, his initial, off- the-cuff reaction was, A, it was very good; and, B, could we add abandoned military bases. Obviously, it is not in order to change the amendment on the floor, but when we go to conference, if the President decides that the official position of the White House is to support the amendment plus add abandoned military bases, we will have a debate in the conference and hopefully add that. But the bottom line on this is we need more refinery capacity. We need it in this country. Why not put it at old refinery sites or old manufacturing sites where they have high unemployment and we can create some good jobs for America, and oh, yes, by the way, most of these jobs will be union jobs. I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Solis amendment. Let us vote for jobs in America. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conaway amendment. I think it adds to the bill. It is a study to ask the Department of Energy and the Department of Labor to see what the supply of labor is in the oil field industry, both in the short term and the long term. You hear stories that all the landmen have retired and the geophysicists have retired, and you even hear some stories that we do not have the roughnecks to go out and operate the rigs. There is a big natural gas plague going on in Texas right now. There is some oil production drilling going on. So I think this is a useful element, and I hope we would support it. I thank the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway), for offering it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It looked to me like it was. We had a good debate on it there and it was rejected, and I honestly hope that the House does the same. Mr. Chairman, I want to read a part of the amendment. It says under section 151, ``Presidential actions. For purposes of reducing waste of oil and decreasing demand for foreign oil, not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this act, appropriate Federal departments and agencies identified by the President shall propose voluntary, regulatory, and other actions,'' other actions, ``sufficient to reduce the demand for oil in the United States by at least 1 million barrels per day from projected demand for oil in 2013.'' Now, let us go through that. The gentleman is stating that we are wasting oil. I guess when I hop in my pickup truck to go to the store to get some milk, then I am wasting gasoline. But my wife does not think I am wasting it, my children or stepchildren do not think I am wasting it when they get to drink the milk that I go get, but I guess maybe we are. So I do not know how we would identify this waste, but I assume there would be some Federal commission that could identify the waste of oil. Of course, it talks about decreasing the demand for foreign oil. Well, oil is oil. We do get about 14 million barrels a day from overseas, and God bless us that we do. Our economy would come to a halt if we did not. So I am not sure how we would work on that. It talks about being voluntary, regulatory, but then it says ``other actions.'' ``Other'' could be mandatory. ``Other'' could be whatever the President of the United States says it is. But the gentleman from California goes on to say, in subsection B, ``If the President determines that the departments and agencies lack the authority or funding to implement the actions proposed,'' in the section I just read, ``then the President should come to the Congress and request the necessary authority.'' Now, here we have an economy that in the last year in the United States, demand for energy has gone up, not down. The price of gasoline in nominal dollars has doubled in the last year. Demand has gone up 2 percent. We have doubled the price and demand has gone up. But yet, somehow, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) thinks if we accept this amendment, that we are going to be able to wave some magic wand at the presidential level, and maybe at the congressional level, and reduce demand for oil by 1 million barrels. We are only producing around 7 or 8 million barrels a day domestically, but somehow, just by having a group hug in the Federal agencies, we are going to find a way to reduce demand by 1 million barrels. I do not think it is going to work that way. We can emote all we want, but we have a growing economy, a growing population, and we are probably going to continue to need more oil, not less. So the way to do it is to find ways to produce more and to find real-world ways to consume less and get more bang for the buck. This amendment does not get us there, with all due respect. I hope we would oppose it. I strongly support the gentleman's right to offer it, but I just as strongly support my right to oppose it, and I hope at the appropriate time the House will vote ``no'' on the Waxman amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. It may seem odd that I would ask the House to rise to give the gentleman the right to offer an amendment that I am going to oppose, but I think it is worthy of debate. We had a debate in the Committee on Energy and Commerce on this amendment, and I glanced at it, and it appears to be the identical amendment. Is it the identical amendment from the Committee on Energy and Commerce?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I offer this amendment to make sure that the so-called scientific studies performed under the provisions of the bill are, in fact, based on science and not on anyone's view or preconceived notions of what science should be. For too long, documents and studies performed on risk assessments on health and the environment have been produced that do not really reflect science, but rather a given policy bias mixed with elements of science. That document is then paraded forward, as if it were a true risk assessment. I want to make sure that when the Federal Government asks for a risk assessment, that the response is based on sound and objective scientific practices. I also want to ensure that the assessor of those risks to human health and the environment consider the best available scientific information. These types of requirements are not new. These are the same types of requirements we have enacted in law for the purpose of the Safe Water Drinking Act; and not surprisingly, those principles have worked very well. With this amendment, we will also follow a related recommendation with the 1997 recommendation of the President's Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Specifically, the amendment asks assessors of risks to provide a description of the weight of the evidence concerning a given risk. In other words, when a new risk to our health or the environment is claimed in a study, those responsible for releasing the study must describe their understanding of what best science tells us about that risk. The bill before us today contains a section providing for the Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research program. This section, among other items, addresses risk assessments of public health and the environment. These subject matters are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I want to ensure that these provisions reflect the congressional desire for sound science. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) of the Committee on Science for his work and assistance in the base text of the language and also for his and his staff's assistance in working out the language of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to make a brief comment and then recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science. When the gentleman from Minnesota asked who could object to this, we know the answer. The good gentleman from Minnesota, my good friend objects to it. So that answers that question. I would point out that the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) supports this, and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) supports this, and the President's Council on Risk Assessment supports this language. It is language that is in current law for the Safe Water Drinking Act. So there are a number of eminent groups and individuals that do support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. My first response to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), who is a member of both the Committee on Science and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, is that he is right that this amendment exceeds the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. That is why it was offered by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, because it does not exceed the jurisdiction of the committee that I chair and has been worked out in conjunction with the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the chairman of the Committee on Science. So if you put us all in the same tent collectively, it does not exceed the jurisdiction. The language that we are using is language that was put forward initially by a Presidential commission under President Clinton's administration in the mid-1990s, and it is their language that we are incorporating into the amendment. So this is not some subterfuge to use Republican language or conservative language; it is language that was originally adopted and supported by President Clinton in his administration. All we are trying to do with this amendment is make sure that as various projects come forward and we need to do investigations and risk assessments, that it be done based on sound scientific principles. I think that is an issue that both sides can agree upon, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. In my view, the CMAQ program--like any use of tax dollars--should be applied as cost effectively as possible to achieve appropriate Federal policy goals. A recent study suggests some CMAQ uses--such as building bike paths-- do little to relieve either congestion or air pollution, which are the policy goals of CMAQ. The Transportation Research Board study estimates that bike paths funded with CMAQ money cost the taxpayer on average $80,000 per ton of pollution removed. If this study is correct, in my view, CMAQ dollars can and should be better spent. New technologies have recently proven very cost effective in reducing pollution. For example, diesel retrofit and anti-idling technologies are having positive results around the Nation. Retrofit technologies-- which are being used in the President's Clean School Bus program are much like the catalytic converter on your car. These devices are capable of removing 80 to 90 percent of the pollutants from the exhaust of a diesel engine. The increased use of these technologies in other sectors of the economy should be encouraged. Any steps we can take to clarify that CMAQ money can be spent to deploy a new crop of technologies including retrofits and anti-idling devices that are highly effective at reducing emissions from diesel engines makes good sense. Our states are scrambling to find ways to deal with the new EPA designations without jeopardizing economic development. Using CMAQ funds more wisely may help us out a great deal.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thought the author of the amendment had the right to close.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and I am ready to close if the gentleman from Minnesota is ready.

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