Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the marble slab behind the Speaker's rostrum, it starts out with the quote, ``Let us develop the resources of our great land,'' and it goes on in some detail. That is by Daniel Webster. If there was ever a time that we were before this body fulfilling that wish of Daniel Webster, it is today. This energy bill that is before us touches every energy source in our country. If my colleagues think that we need to do more to develop our conventional resources of oil, gas, nuclear, coal, and hydro, it is in this bill. If my colleagues think we need to do more to develop our renewable resources like solar and hydroelectric and biomass and wind power, it is in this bill. If my colleagues think we need to focus on the future and try to find new alternative sources of energy like hydrogen, it is in this bill. If my colleagues think that we need to do something to structure the reform, the basic energy systems of our country like the electricity grid, it is in this bill. I could go on and on and on, but I will simply say that this is the most comprehensive energy bill that has ever been before a Congress of the United States of America, and it is long overdue. I am very proud of this bill. I have been working on it in some shape, form, or fashion for 19 years that I have been in the Congress. As subcommittee chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I have been working on it for almost 6 years. So I think it is an excellent bill. It passed the House in a bipartisan fashion back in April. As the chairman of the committee has pointed out, the Senate conferees voted for it in the conference report 10 to 3 last evening. When we get the bill to the floor later this evening, it will pass in a very bipartisan fashion with 50 to perhaps even as many as 100 Democrats voting for it. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our chairman for his excellent work, the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin). We could not have had a better senior negotiator for the House position than him. I want to thank Senator Domenici in the other body for his excellent work. And I want to thank the committee staffs who have worked so hard on the bill: Dan Brouillette, Jim Barnette, Mark Menezes, Andy black, Jason Bentley, Dwight Cates, Bill Cooper, Sean Cunningham, Bob Meyers and, on my staff, Ryan Long and Joby Fortson. This is a good bill. Vote for the rule, vote against the motion to recommit, and vote for final passage.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are some bills that come before this body that are showhorse bills. They are full of glitz and glamour and lots of slogans and sloganeering. Some bills that come before this body are workhorse bills. They are full of common sense and solutions. This is a workhorse bill. It is full of solutions, not a lot of glitz and glamour in the bill. If we look at our energy sources, we see that in the conventional sources, whether it is oil, gas, coal, nuclear or hydro, we have real solutions. We increase the strategic petroleum reserve for oil to 1 billion barrels. We authorize up to $18 billion in loan guarantees to build the Alaska natural gas pipeline for the natural gas industry. We have the most extensive set of clean coal technology credits for coal that we have ever put before this body in terms of a tax package for clean coal. We have the most fundamental reform of our hydro relicensing procedure in over 30 years. And over half of our hydroelectric dams are up for renewal in the next 5 years. Those are solutions. They are not slogans. If you look at renewables, we have unlimited authorization for credits for wind and solar power. That is a solution, not a slogan. If you look at the new alternative fuel, hydrogen, we have the President's hydrogen fuel initiative in this bill. We have the goal of having a hydrogen-fueled car available in the marketplace by 2015. That is a solution, not a slogan. If you look at structural reforms, turn to the electricity section of our bill; we have the most fundamental transforms in transmission we have ever had in any before this Congress in terms of electricity. We have incentives for transmission pricing. We have the creation of regional transmission organizations. We have a good compromise on participant funding, a good compromise on protective native low. Those are solutions, not slogans. We have mandatory reliability for electricity. That is a solution, not a slogan. For the first time ever we have Federal backstop authority for siting of new transmission lines. That is a solution, not a slogan. We turn to the environmental section of the bill. As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) has already pointed out, we have the first comprehensive form of the LUST bill, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank bill. We are actually going to require the States to go out and inspect these underground storage tanks every 3 years. That is a solution, not a slogan. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker; but I will simply say this: if you want a slogan, vote ``no.'' If you want a solution, vote ``yes.'' This is a good bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Okay. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I still have?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and at the end of my statement I am going to ask my good friend from Abilene to answer a few questions since I know he has got a number of these drilling sites in his District. I want to start out by saying we have no opposition if a State or a local government, for whatever reason, wishes to put some regulations in place to prevent siltation into their waterways, but the Clean Water Act is explicit that we do not regulate drilling sites, oil and gas drilling sites, under the Clean Water Act. It is explicit in the Act. What EPA has tried to do is say, that is true, but we should be able to regulate the site construction, the site preparation of these drilling sites. Now, use a little common sense. What is the worst thing that is going to happen while one is preparing a site to be used as a drilling site for oil and gas exploration? It might rain. It might rain. I do not know how long it takes to prepare a drilling site. My good friend from Abilene may know. It may take a week. It may take 2 weeks. It may take a couple of days, but if it takes 6 months to get the permit to prepare the site, and a person has to spend $10- or $15,000 to get the permit and then to put up the berms and all that stuff and it does not rain, they have done a lot of work for nothing, and maybe if one is a small, independent drilling operator like there are a lot of in my District, trying to operate out of the old Corsicana field or Mexia field, they may say to heck with it, I am not going to even try. The average well in Texas produces less than 10 barrels of oil a day right now. How many little guys do we want to make it so impossible to do anything to extend the life of our existing fields on the off chance that while they are preparing the site to drill it might rain? The Clean Water Act does not regulate dirt as a pollutant. It is not a regulated pollutant. So all that we are saying in the bill that has already passed the House is the law already is explicit that the EPA cannot regulate an active drilling site. We say they cannot go in and in a back door way try to regulate the site preparation, and again, we are talking about storm water, rainwater, runoff which if one is preparing a drilling site, the worst that is going to happen is it might rain and they might get a little mud. That is the worst that is going to happen.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. In my District, we are going into old fields and trying to extend the life of those fields, and on occasion, believe it or not, they do scrape up $10- or $15-, $50,000, get a lease, go out and actually try to drill a new well. It does happen, not as often as it should, in my opinion, but it does happen.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If one goes to drill in an existing site, under State regulation, in my case the State of Texas, requires site remediation, site monitoring, and again, we are talking about storm water runoff. If there is contamination, we do not change that. We do not change that at all. All we are simply saying is heaven help the poor guy or girl in our society that wants to go out and try to find some more oil and gas and they actually put up their own money, go to the bank, borrow it, whatever. Let us do not require them to get a waste water runoff permit from the Federal EPA that explicitly says in the current law one does not have to have once the site is active. I want to ask my good friend from Abilene a few questions if he would care to engage me in a colloquy or dialogue. I would assume that the gentleman has some oil and gas production in his District in West Texas. Is that correct?

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Texas, on the dry holes drilled on the gentleman's property, how long did it take them to prepare the site for drilling?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. When they are doing this site preparation, they prepare the pits, they have State and Federal regulations they have to comply with in terms of the drilling muds and the fluids that go down in the well and come up with the well; is that correct?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So if there is anything that is going to be contaminated, they are preparing for those types of fluids?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. But they are not actually using any of those fluids in the site preparation? They are not doing a test run where they put those kinds of fluids in?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for engaging in this dialogue, and it is obviously not prepared. Let me continue to yield and ask a final question. Does the gentleman know anybody in west Texas, in his district, that thinks that dirt that gets wet is a pollutant? Wet dirt caused by rain raining on the drilling site, is there anybody in west Texas that thinks that is a pollutant, wet dirt because of rain?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. When was the last flood in Abilene?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. We have shown in this debate that there is bipartisan opposition to the Filner motion. It is not because we do not like the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). He is a great guy. It is not because he is from California, the Golden State, it is simply because his motion, to those of us who oppose it, just defies common sense. The law is clear if we have an active drilling site, it is explicitly exempt in the statute from regulation for waste water runoff. There is no reason in the world to take the plain language of an active drilling site and say you should have to regulate, at the Federal level, the site preparation for rain water runoff. That is why we clarified and added this simple section that says what they say for the site itself when it is active should also be applicable to site preparation. I ask for a no vote on the Filner motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If we were to agree to the Filner motion to pull something out of the pending energy bill that has already passed the House so EPA could regulate the site preparation for storm water, rain water runoff, then, obviously, additional site preparation would be required, additional berms, plastic fences, and those types of things; is that correct?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct filed by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) seeks to remove section 12403 of H.R. 6, the pending energy bill in conference with our counterparts in the other body, the provision that passed the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House as a whole. The motion to instruct would seek to have the House conferees reject the provision that the House has already adopted when we passed H.R. 6 on April 11 by a vote of 247 for the bill to 175 against the bill. That is approximately a 60 percent vote in support of the overall package. Section 12403 in the context of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which we commonly refer to as the Clean Water Act, defines oil and gas exploration and production to mean ``all field operations necessary for both exploration and production of oil and gas, including activities necessary to prepare a site for drilling and for the movement and placement of drilling equipment, whether or not such activities may be considered construction activities.'' Why do we need to have a definition in this energy bill? Section 402(1)(2) of the Clean Water Act specifically prohibits the administrator of the EPA from requiring a Federal stormwater discharge permit for discharges of stormwater runoff from, again, I quote directly from the act, ``oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities composed entirely of flows which are from conveyances or systems of conveyances, including, but not limited to, pipes, conduits, ditches, and channels, used for collecting and conveying precipitation runoff and which are not contaminated.'' This has been the law since 1987. In plain language what it means is the EPA has no regulatory authority over waste water in the construction or the operation of a drilling rig in the United States. This has been the law since 1987. The statutory language seems clear that any matter of stormwater collection, whether it is a ditch, a culvert under a road, a diversion channel around an oil and gas well location, does not have to be permitted by the EPA. We could not be more clear. But the EPA has sought to regulate the building of the oil and gas location sites by insisting on National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES, permits, commonly referred to as stormwater discharge permits for the construction of the site. So even the EPA will admit that once it is built and in operation, they have no jurisdiction. So they are trying to do a back-door, an end-around and say you have to get a permit to construct the site. That simply is not the intent of the Congress. It was not the intent of the Congress 10, 15 years ago; and it is not the intent of this Congress. It is a direct contravention of the intent of Congress. The requirement for a stormwater discharge permit is in direct opposition to Congress that the EPA attempts to separate the movement and placement of drilling equipment from oil and gas exploration and production operations. Applying common sense, which sometimes is in short supply, I understand, but if you apply common sense to the plain meaning of the statute, you would show that activities necessary to prepare a site for drilling and for the movement and placement of drilling equipment are part and parcel of the operation. You cannot have one without the other. Therefore, a statutory exclusion for one totally encompasses the other as well. The existing statute specifically precludes the requirement for stormwater discharge permit if the runoff is not contaminated by coming into contact with, again I quote from the act, ``any overburden, raw material, intermediate products, finished product, by-product, or waste products located on the site of such operations.'' Yet the EPA seems willing to entertain those and argue that dirt, D-I-R-T, is a contaminant. The term ``overburden'' is used in association with mining operations, not oil and gas operations, and is defined in the code of the Federal regulations to exclude topsoil. The terms ``intermediate products, finished product, by-product, or waste products'' eliminate consideration of dirt from their definitions because their definition encompasses the results of a process. Dirt is not something that EPA regulates. ``Raw material'' is commonly defined as a crude or processed material that can be converted by manufacture, processing, or combination to a new and useful product. Raw material is not dirt. Therefore, pursuant to the express language in the statute, the building of an oil and gas well location which involves the movement of topsoil, or as we would say in Texas, dirt, is not subject to the requirements of stormwater discharge permit. We are talking about rain on dirt. This is not a man- made pollutant. But even though the Clean Water Act is abundantly clear on this issue, EPA has chosen to ignore its express language, consequently the need for this definitional provision. Does this definitional provision affect the existing Clean Water Act? No. The provision merely defines oil and gas exploration and production. It does not change the substantive application of the Clean Water Act but merely provides a definition to provide clarity that should be readily apparent to any normally intelligent human being upon reading the statute. The Clean Water Act requires a permit for contaminated runoff. This provision does not change that requirement. This provision does not allow contaminated stormwater runoff. In keeping with the existing law, which was enacted as a part of the Water Quality Control Act of 1987, this provision preserves the congressional intent to preclude the necessity of a permit for stormwater runoff that is not contaminated. Congress never intended for EPA to require a permit for the runoff of uncontaminated water or rain over dirt. Vote against the motion to instruct. Let common sense prevail and preserve the House position. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Has the gentleman ever been in a conversation with an oil and gas producer at some cafe or maybe a church or at a social and they actually talked about maybe going out and trying to drill a few new wells?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas, (Mr. Green) a member of the committee of jurisdiction. (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson), a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Mr. CARSON of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Can I inquire of the gentleman, who is the author of the amendment, if he has any other speakers?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The reason I ask is, the gentleman has the right to close. So after I speak is the gentleman going to give the closing statement? Is that the gentleman's intention at this point in time?