Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are not going to oppose the Markey motion to instruct conferees. I have listened to his comments closely and would say that they do reflect the changes as outlined. I would point out that while the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is absolutely correct that the House has passed twice the issues that he refers to in his comments in the Senate conference with the House last year, Senate conferees, which at that time were a majority of Democrats, voted to strip all the provisions out that he has just alluded to and that the energy bill that we went to conference with with the Senate this year had none of these provisions in; and the provisions that he alluded to in his motion to instruct, section 14011, 14012(d), and 14013, are in the conference report. They have been changed in the ways that he said. Section 14011 did apply to domestic and international shipments. In the conference report, it does only apply to international; so he is correct on that. 14012(d), the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) amendment that has passed the House did say ``shall'' and the conference report will come back with ``may''; so he is correct on that. And section 14013, the Department of Homeland Security as passed by the House did require a consultation before the grant of a Price- Anderson indemnification agreement. And also before the issuance of a license for a new facility, as it is going to come out of conference, it will apply only to those issuances of a new license. So he is right in his characterization of the changes. So we get down to a situation, is the glass half full or half empty; and since the Senate had none of these provisions last year or this year, as a conferee, I would suggest to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) that the glass is half full as opposed to the glass is half empty. Changes have been made; but we still have the issues in play, not as strong as he would wish them to be, but they are still in the bill, and it will be good public policy to make these changes that he supports. So I would hope that, while we support the motion to instruct conferees, the truth of the matter is that most of the conferring has been done. We expect to have this bill on the floor sometime next week. It is very unlikely we are going to reopen the conference; but certainly if it were to be reopened, we would support the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) motion because since the House has already passed what the motion is instructing us to support, we have every reason to continue to support it knowing that it is a bicameral body and that the House does not always get everything it wants when we are negotiating with the Senate. So I support the motion to instruct and commend my friend for all his good work in this area over many years and pledge that we will continue to work together not just on this conference report but on future bills to make our nuclear facilities the best and the safest in the world. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I think that agreement that the gentleman alluded to in the Constitution was one of the biggest mistakes in the Constitution.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have had a good debate on the floor, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that there are two parts to the Capps motion. The first part is to reinsert some language dealing with time lines for filing amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act permitting process. That would actually give something that is not available under current law. So I would oppose the Capps amendment on the first part because of the open-ended nature of that particular procedural aspect of it. On the second part of the Capps amendment that deals with this inventory, you can make an argument, if we were self-sufficient in energy resources in this Nation and were not importing almost two- thirds of our oil, and we are now importing 10 percent of our natural gas, that one would not need to do an inventory because we had such abundance that we did not need to know what our energy resources were. But that is not the case. We are importing over 60 percent of our oil needs on a daily basis, and we are now importing over 10 percent of our natural gas needs. We simply cannot continue, in my opinion, the policy of only drilling where we have always been drilling. The inventory is not an open-ended change in current law so that we could go out and drill willy-nilly in all of these areas that we have put off limits, but it does say we can find out what is there. That is good public policy. If we found that there was a tremendous energy resource where we have not been drilling, we would still have all of the procedural protections at the State level and the Federal level to make an informed decision on whether to drill that resource or not, but at least we should be able to determine what is there. So while I totally understand my colleagues from the affected States that, for whatever reason, feel like they should not allow this inventory to go forward, I cannot understand from a national perspective that we oppose just the mere fact of inventorying our natural resources, because one cannot make an informed decision about what to do if one does not know what one has. So I would hope that we would vote against the Capps motion to instruct so that this little part of the energy bill would go forward, and we could do the inventory. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would not go that far. I have to reclaim my time on that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We would certainly hope so.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not want Yankee fans to get mad at the Speaker of the House who is probably rooting for the Cubs and things like that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time, that is not the official Republican position; it is simply my position.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my good friend from Massachusetts that I am going to be rooting for the Red Sox on a bipartisan basis, and I hope that they hold on to the ball if it is hit to them and it does not dribble through their legs, so that we can finally get those Red Sox to the next stage in the process. But in direct response to my good friend's question about where this idea came from, he is absolutely right. It was not in the House bill, the inventory, that is. It was not in the Senate bill. But when it got to conference, somebody had a better idea. A little light bulb when off in their head, and they said, why not do an inventory? Why not find out what is there, just in case? And the conference rules, as my good friend well knows, do not prohibit good ideas coming in, even if they have not been in the bill that came out of the House or the other body. So that is why it is in there, and at least some of us think that it is a good idea.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that I understand the concerns expressed by my colleagues who are supporting the Capps motion to instruct, but I would point out that the environmental community in general opposes any oil drilling where it has not been drilled before. They oppose any natural gas drilling where it has not been drilled before. They oppose construction of nuclear power plants, generally. They oppose the construction of coal-fired power plants, generally. I am now told in one instance where there is an attempt to build a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts, where there happens to be excellent conditions for wind power, they oppose that. What do they support to give our Nation the energy resources we need to maintain a viable economy? It is okay to oppose things if you have a substitute for it. I have yet to hear the substitute for it. And the inventory simply gives us the opportunity to at least catalogue where those potential energy resources might be.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side, other than myself, to make whatever closing comments. Am I allowed to recognize myself more than once until I close?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the vice chairman of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct filed by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) essentially seeks to prevent the outer continental shelf inventory from being in the energy conference report, and it seeks to keep an open-ended time line for the Coastal Zone Management Act to the Secretary of Commerce on consistency determinations. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, Congress declared it to be in the national policy to encourage the participation and cooperation of coastal States and Federal agencies, among others, in carrying out the purposes of the act, which are to preserve, protect and develop, and I would emphasize ``and develop,'' the resources of the Nation's coastal zones. Long ago, coastal States wishing to participate in coastal zone management of Federal activities affecting their coastal zones had to submit State coastal management plans detailing their enforceable policies to the Secretary of Commerce. Thereafter, any Federal agency that processes an applicant's request for a Federal license or permit cannot grant the license or permit unless the State has concurred, either affirmatively or by failure to respond within 6 months of its receipt of the notice sent by the applicant, with the applicant's certification that the proposed activity is consistent with the State's management plan. Regulations by Federal agencies require that an applicant notify an affected coastal zone State of potential coastal impacts early in the application process. CZMA provides for an appeals process to the Secretary of Commerce by the applicant or on the Secretary's own initiative with comments from the Federal agency contemplating the application for a Federal license or permit if the coastal State does not concur that the proposed activity is consistent with the State's coastal management plan. This is current law. CZMA does not authorize the Secretary of Commerce plenary authority to revisit every aspect of the lead Federal agencies' work in determining whether to grant a permit or license. Rather, CZMA addresses the determination that a proposed activity is consistent with the State's coastal management plan as approved and submitted by that State to the Secretary of Commerce. All of that is to say that the CZMA contemplates the embedding of this process, the State process, in the lead Federal agency proceeding. The act does not suggest that sequential considerations would occur by each and every agency with the statutory obligation to weigh in on any given proposed project. In fact, the CZMA directs ``the coordination of simplification of procedures in order to ensure expedited governmental decisionmaking for the management of the coastal resources.'' That is 14 U.S.C. Sec. 1452(2)(H). Under current law, 16 U.S.C. 1465, on an appeal to the Secretary of Commerce concerning a consistency determination, the time line for action by the Secretary does not begin until the Secretary publishes a notice that the decision record has been closed. There is no set time for which the Secretary must close the record. Again, this is current law. Section 325 of the conference draft merely sets forth specific time frames for which the Secretary of Commerce must act, and I emphasize must, on an appeal of a consistency determination within the context of CZMA by requiring, one, the Secretary has to publish an initial notice within 30 days of the filing of the appeal; number two, the closure of the record within 120 days from the date of publication of the initial notice which requires the publication of a notice stating the record is closed; and, three, the rendering of a decision by the Secretary within 120 days after the filing of the notice that the record has been closed. This provision, again section 325 of the conference report, does not affect other statutes or the obligation of other agencies to carry out their statutory duties. It merely clarifies that full, substantive consideration of all issues be undertaken in an efficient manner. It appropriately ensures that the Secretary of Commerce will consider any appeal of a consistency determination in a timely manner so that all concerned will have a certainty of a decision, and I would emphasize certainty of a decision. Such a requirement is in keeping with the explicit goal of this Congress to fashion an integrated process of permit approval which weighs fully and comprehensively the competing concerns of all participants in a timely manner. This provision is not outcome determinative, but merely sets forth a time line for processing of one appeal in a regulatory process which involves various Federal agencies, each dealing with its own area of expertise. As to the OCS inventory, the provision appearing in the conference draft, the provision merely states that ``the Secretary of the Interior shall conduct an inventory.'' It does not say that the moratoria should be lifted or there should be drilling. It does nothing except to say there should be an inventory. This provision does not add anything new to existing law. The Secretary of the Interior has discretionary authority to do the inventory anyway. I would assume and I would stipulate as a member of the subcommittee and the full committee, and also as a member of the conference that is now dealing with the other body, that we owe it to the Nation to know what our resources are so we can make informed decisions. Mr. Speaker, I know that the motion to instruct from the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is well meaning, but I really see no need for it, and I would hope that we would vote against it at the appropriate time, which I understand is next week. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I would be happy to yield 4 of my 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), for purposes of control.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, which I chair, of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I will not be long-winded. Let me simply say, we do not oppose the Inslee amendment on the motion to instruct the conferees. We are prepared to accept it. We think it is an amendment that has merit, obviously, as we have heard from the other gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) who just spoke. These are issues that are serious and that need to be addressed. We can say that we had no intention to put in any language on this issue in the conference report unless we did have concurrence and agreement of the States and the Department of Energy. It is an issue that we are working on seriously. It is unlikely that there will be specific language on this issue in the conference report, but certainly, if we consider it, we will work with the gentleman who offered the motion to make sure that the States involved are consulted with. Let me indicate at the outset that this side is prepared to accept the motion. As the gentleman knows, it is nonbinding. Let me also inform the gentleman that this issue is not one that either the Chairman of the conference from the other body or I are actively seeking to put into the conference report. Having said that, DOE's high level waste problem is a complex issue that deserves the attention of the Congress. The Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on this issue in the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee in July. We heard testimony from the States of Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina, where much of DOE's radioactive wastes are located. At the hearing, the GAO recommended that Congress clarify the high level waste definition, so that DOE can settle on a strategy and move forward with cleanup plans at Hanford, Savannah River, Idaho, and other sites. Due to a recent Federal district court decision, it is uncertain whether DOE can proceed with its cleanup plans at these sites. It is important that DOE reach agreement with the affected States on the appropriate solution to this matter. Without clarification of DOE's authorities with respect to high level wastes, we may experience cleanup delays as DOE tries to settle this in the courts. DOE has recently estimated that if Congress does not address this matter, we may incur an additional $60 billion in cleanup costs. The gentleman from Washington should know that following the filing of his motion on Tuesday, we were informed by the Department of Energy that they are in advanced negotiations with affected governors on a solution. So while I have no objection to the motion today, I do want to put the House on notice that if the DOE and the affected States arrive at some kind of agreement, then I do anticipate that the administration will request that we include it in the conference report on H.R. 6. Not having seen the agreement, of course, I can't say with any certainty whether I will recommend honoring that request, but I intend to give it every consideration should it be transmitted. The Secretary of Energy, Washington, DC, October 2, 2003. Hon. Billy Tauzin, Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington,

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We will not oppose the motion to instruct the conferees, and we thank the gentleman for offering it and the individuals who spoke in favor of it.