Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to my friend that there is no back room. We are doing everything in the front room. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Hastings), from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for a question.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, that is not only my understanding, that is also the full committee chairman's understanding, and that is the understanding of the chairman of the conference, Senator Domenici.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Republic of Kazakhstan for its potential to enhance our nation's energy independence and for its significant contributions in support of the United States in the War on Terror. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing the strategic importance of Kazakhstan to our nation's well-being. It is widely recognized that the United States relies greatly on imports of OPEC oil from the Middle East. This reliance is exacerbated by the present instability of that region. Mr. Speaker, if the United States is to become truly energy independent, it must seek non-OPEC alternatives for our supply of oil. Kazakhstan can--and is willing to-- help greatly in this endeavor. The Caspian region of Central Asia contains a wealth of oil reserves. Kazakhstan, in particular, shows great promise. Adding to its robust economy, over the past six years, Kazakhstan has more than doubled its production of oil from 415,000 to almost 1 million barrels per day. By 2015, Kazakhstan is expected to produce 2.5 million barrels per day. This production would place it among the top non-OPEC producers of oil in the world. However, Kazakhstan requires foreign investment in order to improve and expand its oil and gas infrastructure so that the benefit of its significant reserves can be realized. Importantly, Kazakhstan has taken steps to promote transparency in its financial transactions, particularly with regard to oil transactions. The government recently established the National Fund, which will be a model for openness and disclosure in the management of the country's oil revenues. The government also has pledged transparency and openness in future oil and gas contracts, and has officially endorsed the British government's Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Kazakhstan is a young country struggling to institute meaningful democratic reforms. This has been a difficult path to travel and much work remains. Yet from the beginning, Kazakhstan's tangible progress has signaled its unwavering commitment to effect true change. Kazakhstan's desire to forge a strong energy partnership with the United States is one example. Another is Kazakhstan's support of the United States in the War on Terror. As the center of the former Soviet Union's nuclear and biological weapons programs, Kazakhstan held considerable--and potentially dangerous--power over the world as the Soviet Union broke apart. In fact, Kazakhstan had the fourth largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world larger than Britain, France and China combined. Rather than capitulating to countries offering to pay millions of dollars to purchase these weapons, Kazakhstan's leader, Nursultan Nazarbayev, boldly chose instead to destroy the country's stockpile and position Kazakhstan as a stabilizing force in the region. Mr. President, in light of September 11, threats from North Korea, and the war and continuing operations in Iraq, Kazakhstan's courageous decision against becoming a nuclear state certainly has helped the world avoid greater threats to peace and stability. Kazakhstan has been a leader and is the current chair of the Central Asian Cooperation Organization, which unites several nations of the region to combat terrorism, extremism, and drug trafficking. Toward that end, Kazakhstan has consistently supported the United States in the War on Terror. During the war in Iraq, Kazakhstan granted to the United States overflight rights and access to its airbase at Almaty. Kazakhstan also participates in NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan's contributions have not gone unnoticed. During a visit to Kazakhstan in July 2003, the NATO Secretary General praised Kazakhstan for its support of the peace keeping mission in Iraq and its support for the War on Terror. Kazakhstan was the first Central Asian republic to join in the post-war reconstruction efforts. In August 2003, Kazakhstan sent 27 military personnel, including de-mining experts, engineers, and translators to Iraq. The illustrations of Kazakhstan's tangible efforts to join the democratic world could not be more stark. Kazakhstan chose non- proliferation over possessing nuclear weapons; it chose peace and prosperity over terrorism and strife; it chose a market economy over the communist status quo; and it chose the difficult path of reform over complacency. Kazakhstan's ability to greatly enhance our energy independence, and its position alongside the United States in the War on Terror, are but two illustrations of Kazakhstan's resolve to affect positive, longstanding change. Kazakhstan stands out because it possesses great potential and is supported by a powerful commitment toward democracy. Considerable work remains, and the United States must lend its support to ensure that Kazakhstan continues down the path toward democratization. I ask that my colleagues join me in commending the Republic of Kazakhstan on its positive steps forward.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, natural gas prices at the wellhead are over $5 or approaching $5 a thousand cubic feet. The motion to instruct by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) does absolutely nothing about that problem. Gasoline prices are averaging $1.50 a gallon all over the country, and in some parts they are over $2 a gallon. The motion to instruct does nothing about that. The President's hydrogen fuel cell initiative, which we all applauded when the President was before us during the State of the Union and which I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) supports, there is nothing in the motion to instruct that does anything about that. Many of my friends on the minority side of the aisle very strongly support an R&D clean coal technology program in the bill which passed the House last April. There is nothing to instruct conferees on that particular issue. Everybody I know of is for hydropower and hydro reforms in the House- passed bill awaiting conference with the Senate. There is nothing in the gentleman's motion to instruct about hydro licensing reform. If we only want to focus on electricity, the gentleman's motion on reliability standards does not say anything at all about the need for a regional transmission organizational policy, does not do anything at all for siting authority which is desperately needed, does not do anything at all to create any new incentives to build and operate transmission. In fact, if all we did was pass the reliability provisions the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has put before the body this evening, if that is all we did, we would not even solve the problem of the blackout that happened on August 14 in the Northeast, because if we only do reliability standards and we do nothing else structurally in electricity, you can have all of the mandatory standards that you want and if you flip that switch and there is no electricity to go through that switch, the lights are not going to come on. The only way, even if we have mandatory enforceable reliability standards, that we are really going to prevent the kind of problem that happened on August 14 is if we do a comprehensive energy bill, which we did on this floor I believe on April 9 of this year, where we did address the natural gas issue. We did address the oil issue and the gasoline issue. We did address the hydrogen fuel initiative and clean coal technology. We did address hydro licensing reform, and we did address a comprehensive electricity title that does include mandatory standards for reliability, that does include an RTO policy, that does include a Federal backstop for siting and does include incentives to build and operate new transmission. I could on and on. There is nothing wrong with the gentleman from Michigan's motion to instruct conferees to do reliability. We have done it. We did it on April 9, but we need to do more than that. We need a comprehensive energy bill that is integrated and interconnected. The House has passed it on a bipartisan basis. We are going to nominate conferees to go to conference with the Senate. As the chairman of the full committee has so aptly pointed out, we can have a comprehensive energy bill conference report back before this body and the other body by the end of this month if we work together in a good-faith, bipartisan fashion. I invite the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) to do that. I am sure he will be a conferee. And let us be sure that we do not just do a little bit that does not really solve the problem. Let us do a comprehensive bill that solves the problem. To quote a famous sports shoemaker, let us just do it. Let us just do it. Do it right, do it now, do it together.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the committee report for H.R. 2861, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (H. Rept. 108-235) contains non-legislative language concerning the phase out of metered dose inhalers (MDIs) containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This report language addresses a citizen petition which has been filed with the Food and Drug Administration as well as theoretical, future decisions by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol and contains various statements urging certain actions. I strongly object to directive language being placed within H. Rept. 108- 235 since this language has not been subject to regular order and process in the committee of jurisdiction. The Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over the phase-out of CFCs by virtue of its jurisdiction over Title VI of the Clean Air Act. The Committee, in fact, has substantially reviewed this matter in the past, holding numerous hearings concerning the implementation of Title VI, matters concerning methyl bromide, the structure and disbursements of the Multilateral Fund established by the Montreal Protocol, the schedules applicable to hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other matters within the ambit of this title. In specific, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on May 6, 1998 concerning Regulatory Efforts to Phaseout Chlorofluorocarbon-Based Metered Dose Inhalers which received testimony from numerous witnesses, including the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. This hearing extensively explored the legal background and ongoing regulatory efforts concerning essential use allocations for CFC-based MDIs and the work of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in this matter. The Committee has not acted, however, to review the citizen petition referred to in H. Rept. 108-235, nor has it considered what action may or may not be appropriate for the United States to take at upcoming Meetings of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to report language regarding regional transmission organization, RTO, matters in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, section of H.R. 2754, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The Committee's report expresses ``concerns'' regarding the integration of various companies into a regional transmission organization, RTO, pursuant to a specified FERC order. The language also states that the Committee ``expects'' that the FERC will ``require'' certain parties to meet specified conditions ``before proceeding'' with such integration. The language also warns that the Committee ``may address'' this issue ``in more detail'' in the conference, ``pending receipt'' of a status ``report'' from FERC on this issue. Matters pertaining to the regulation of electric transmission are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Appropriations Committee has no jurisdiction over such FERC activity and should, therefore, not address this matter in conference. FERC should disregard the report language, which has no legal force or effect.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend my chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), for his work in this noble effort, and I want to thank him for allowing the reform group that I have been a part of in his committee the opportunity to present an alternative and to try to make that a part of the package. I really appreciate that. I would say to my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, as they have talked about privatizing Medicare, that the first thing that we need to do is preserve Medicare. I would point out that if we do nothing to the existing Medicare program, the projections are that within the next 5 to 10 years, there will be no Medicare, because doctors and hospitals will opt out of the system because they are not able to be reimbursed adequately for the services they are providing. So the first thing that we need to do is to preserve the current Medicare system, and the bill before us does that with such things as competitive bidding for durable medical equipment and other reforms. The second thing I would like to point out is that we understand that seniors need a prescription drug benefit. And my reform group was able to get into this bill a transition program that if this bill becomes law within 90 days of enactment, 17 million seniors in this country will begin to get a prescription drug benefit immediately. They will get a prescription drug card, and if they are low income those drug cards will have $800 of benefits on them; and if they are moderate income, they will have $500; and if they are upper income, they will have $100. Their families and employers can add money to those cards, up to $5,000, and within 90 days of enactment there will be a prescription drug benefit. Not 3 years from now, not 4 years from now but within 90 days. And that drug benefit will not require a deductible, and it will not require any paperwork. It will not have any doughnuts. It will require a modest co-pay, but then you get your prescription drugs plus any discounts that the prescription drug benefit card allows you. And I think that is important that we as a country say to our senior citizens, not that we want to get old people but that we want to give our parents and our grandparents a break. We want to give them a benefit and we want to do it sooner rather than later. I think the most important thing about this bill is that there is an acknowledgment and a guarantee that there will be a benefit, there will be a prescription drug benefit. Now, we can debate and we will debate whether it is adequate or it needs to be more generous or whether it needs to be more universal or whether it needs to be more targeted to the people that need it the most, but the important step is we are giving the benefit, we are adding the benefit and we are doing it now. And our transition program will kick in within 90 days of enactment, no later than September of 2004. So I will vote for this bill and hope we can perfect it as we go through the process.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Austin, briefly.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my good friend from Austin raising that question. My information is that the Inspector General has done an investigation. There is not an issue there. I think some State officials when this, what I would call a ``bug out'' to Ardmore, the gentleman may have a different term for it, he might call it something differently, but when that happened, the Governor and the Speaker of the House, as is their authority under the Texas law, sought to bring the recalcitrant lawmakers back to the legislature so there would be a quorum; and they touched bases with a number of State and Federal officials, and some of the Federal officials made a couple of phone calls, but there was no abuse of power and nothing illegal that has happened, and this is what the investigation has said. Again, I am here as a Republican, a Member of the majority party. I have got no problem if in Austin certain legislators do not want to report for a quorum. That is something that we have the authority to do here; and as my colleague knows, the Texas constitution requires a two- thirds membership present if there is a question of the quorum. So we do not have a problem with that, but I think the State officials in Austin had every right to try to find where those legislators went and try to get them back if they could get them back so there would be a quorum, and there is nothing illegal about that, and there is nothing unethical about that, and there is nothing improper about that. So I just kind of wanted to set the record straight. It may be good political theater, but there is no illegality that has gone on and the Inspector General said that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I really did not plan to speak on this bill, but some of my good friends on the minority side from Texas have been up talking about alleged abuse of funding or power in terms of homeland security officials attempting to find some missing State legislators who went down to Austin and then left Austin and went up to Ardmore, Oklahoma, hung out at the Holiday Inn for a couple of days while the Texas legislature was considering a redistricting bill for Congress. The Inspector General of the homeland security has done an investigation of this allegation and found no substance to it, no merit. As it turns out, the information in terms of the tail number and things like that are available to any citizen in this country who wishes to call the FAA. If they have a tail number, and if that airplane is in the air, FAA will tell a person where that particular airplane is. That is public information unless they have changed the protocol in the last 2 or 3 weeks, and is available to anybody who wishes to try to track where somebody is, that is, if they have the tail number. What happened down in Austin was that the Texas House was going to move a bill to rectify past gerrymanders of the congressional lines that go back over 30 years, and some of the Democratic State legislators decided that they did not want to be part of it; and under the Texas Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote to have a quorum. Enough legislators left town on an organized basis, went up to Oklahoma and hung out until the legislature session had ended. Well, that is according to the rules and may be good press, but it is not going to work in the long term because the Governor called a special session that is going to start in a couple of weeks, and the lines are going to be redrawn to verify the voting wishes of the people of Texas, not of some of the political polls in the minority party. So I just wanted to come over and set the record straight. There has been no abuse of power. There has been no illegal use of funds. There has been nothing like that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida in a colloquy concerning section 521 of H.R. 2115. Section 521 concerns what is known as ``general conformity'' under the Clean Air Act. As reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the provision would require joint action by the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency regarding appropriate emission credits for airport projects. The section would also authorize a pilot program to retrofit airport ground equipment at airports located in nonattainment or maintenance areas, as defined in the Clean Air Act. This provision is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality that I am chairman of. I share the broad goals of this provision, but I have some concerns regarding the current legislative language, including the requirement for joint action. While the language indicates provision of the credits should be ``consistent'' with the Clean Air Act, the current construction may be subject to misinterpretation. It may also be in conflict with the present statutory role of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act. Therefore, I would seek the gentleman's assurances that the Energy and Commerce Committee's interests will be protected in conference and that any final legislative language regarding section 521 be subject to the review and concurrence of the committee that I serve on.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida for his assurances and look forward to working with him during the upcoming conference.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct privilege to introduce to the House of Representatives the fourth member to represent the 19th Congressional District of Texas, the 236th Texan to serve in the House, and 9,833rd U.S. citizen to serve as a member of the House of Representatives, the Honorable Randy Neugebauer, born on December 24, Christmas Eve, 1949, graduate of Texas Tech University, High Plains citizen, small businessman, banker, home developer, and the winner of a historic vote, I believe, by 700 votes. He will say that there were more people in Lubbock that wanted to vote than wanted to vote in Midland, Texas. He now represents both the Permian Basin and the High Plains. We are absolutely delighted to have you. You join such former Texans, Presidents like Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush, Speakers like Jim Wright and Sam Rayburn, majority leaders like Tom DeLay and Dick Armey in this august body. We are delighted to have you. Welcome to the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as Paul Harvey says in his radio broadcasts, Let us hear the rest of the story. My good friend from the State of Texas (Mr. Frost) from the 24th district has been expounding on potentially how unfair that particular redistricting plan that is pending before the Texas House is so I want to talk about the rest of the story. Back in 1980, the redistricting process was controlled by the Democratic legislature in Austin as it should have been because they were in the majority in both the Texas House and the Texas Senate. We did have a Republican Governor at that time. I believe Governor Clements . But the legislative process was dominated by the Democrats. And a map that was put out had 27 congressional districts in it. And I believe, I want to say four of them, four of the 27 elected Republicans, when all the dust had settled, in at least one of those districts was an upset; Congressman Jack Fields upset long-time incumbent Democrat Bob Eckhardt down along the Houston ship channel that was really drawn to be a Democratic district. So we had a situation where Republicans were packed and the citizens of Texas voted over 50 percent for Republican candidates. We had four out of 27 seats in that particular redistricting process. We rock along to 1990. In 1990 you had again a Democratic legislature and a Democratic Governor this time, and Texas gained three more seats; it went to 30 because of population growth. The next election about 55, 56 percent of the voters of Texas voted for Republican candidates, but because of the lines that were drawn, nine Republicans got elected out of 30, 30 percent were elected Republicans when we were voting 57 percent. That 27 percent Delta resulted in about nine congressional seats, electing Democrats that if you had a little bit more fairer lines would have elected Republicans. Now we cannot stand here and tell you today on the floor of the House of Representatives that some of those Democrats that got elected did not deserve to get elected. My good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a good aggie friend of mine, he won in the district that could have been marginally called at least a swing district, but he did a good job. My good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), they are winning in districts that are drawn to be Republican districts; and they are just doing a better job or the Republican candidates just are not up to snuff. That is fair. There is nothing wrong with that. But when you have had two redistrictings done in 1980 and 1990 and it is obvious that the mapmakers, because they were controlled by one political party, which is fair, drew the districts to favor their party. And then we come along to the year 2002, and we elect a Republican House and a Republican Senate and a Republican Governor in Texas. And in the congressional elections we support 57 percent Republican candidates, and we still do not have over half the Congress seats, it is fair to say we should redraw the lines. And that is what the Texas legislature is trying to do right now. I would say it is trying to do it on a bipartisan basis. No one can tell me that Ron Wilson from Houston, Texas, an African American who is chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the Texas House is not a Democrat. And he is part of this process where State Representative Velma Luna, a Democrat, is helping to put this map together. So this is not a Tom DeLay map or a Joe Barton map or even a Tom Craddick map. It is a bipartisan map. It would elect two more Hispanics in all probability. It would elect probably one more African American; and in all probability, yes, it would elect more Republicans. Would it elect 57 percent of the delegation to be Republican? Probably not, because there are still going to be some Democratic incumbent Congressmen who just do a good job, and their constituents support the job they are doing, and they are going to elect them in the districts that are drawn to be Republican. I do not have any problem with that. But to stand here and say, as some Members have said before me, that what is happening in Austin is somehow unscrupulous or ill-towards or ill-founded is just not the case. We are simply trying to get the congressional districts to reflect the voting patterns of the State of Texas. And that is a good thing and not a bad thing. The legislators that are hiding out up in the Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Oklahoma, it may be good PR, and it may be funny; but it is not what they were elected to do. They were elected to go to Austin and participate in the legislative process, to win or lose based on where the votes are. I would remind my friends that when the Republicans were in the minority in 1980 where they did not have 50 Republicans in the legislature at that time, but certainly they did in 1990, they did not bug out. They got beat on the floor, but they stayed and fought. And I would hope later this evening or sometime tomorrow enough people come to form a quorum. If that does not happen, the likelihood is that some very good legislation is going to die, the reorganization of State government which would save hundreds of millions of dollars. The Governor will just call a special session, and we will do this in a special session.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, more than 2 months ago Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on changes to the local telephone competition provisions of 1996 Telecommunications Act. This ``Triennial Review'' is required of this agency by the law we passed. There has got a better way to regulate our Nation's telecommunications industry right now it is in nothing but a tailspin. The FCCs recent Triennial Review ruling has had many unfortunate portions, and clearly cannot be what the Supreme Court was expecting when it remanded the FCCs earlier decision. They seem to allow some companies the ability to provide telephone and Internet services across the nation with minimal investment, and minimal technicians and employees. Unfortunately, after 2 months, no one, including the FCC, has seen the final details of these new regulations. Mr. Speaker, how can regulators vote on provisions that they themselves have not seen? The internal turf battles within this agency go far beyond the walls of the Portals. While bureaucrats argue over how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, real people in this industry are being harmed. Since January 2000, over 600,000 jobs have been lost in the telecommunications industry, most due to a failed policy of former Chairman Reed Hundt who tried to create artificial local competition. Since the vote by the FCC on February 20th, many more jobs have been lost. Delay in issuing regulations by the FCC only continues this ``meltdown'' of one of our premiere growth industries. I for one do not condone this bureaucratic delay and would hope that the FCC drastically changes its initial ruling from last February.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that this is also supported by the National Hydropower Association. The title on hydro relicensing that is in the bill that is before us does not waive anything of the Endangered Species Act. It does not waive any part of the Safe Water Drinking Act. It does not waive any environmental law that is currently on the books. What it does do, if a person has an application to relicense a hydro project in this country, and if a Federal agency proposes what is called a mandatory condition to that relicensing, we allow under our bill the applicant to offer an alternative to that mandatory condition; and if that alternative is as effective in protecting the environment and is more cost-effective or energy-efficient, then the agency has to accept the alternative. That is the principal difference between this bill and the bill that we adopted in the last Congress that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has in his motion to recommit. I would urge my colleagues to support the bill. The bill was introduced as a stand-alone hydro relicensing bill with several Democrats as cosponsors, and when we had votes on this in subcommittee and full committee, a fair number of Democrats crossed over to oppose the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Dingell) bill and support what is in our bill. So let us vote in a bipartisan fashion to oppose the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time. Obviously, I rise in support of this Reynolds amendment, but I am really standing to just say in closing in the overall energy debate this is the most comprehensive energy legislation that has been on the floor of the House, I would argue, in the last 30 or 40 years. It is not an energy bill for Republicans or an energy bill for Democrats. It is an energy bill for all Americans. We have a broad-based bill. We do something to try to help coal, to try to help oil and natural gas, to try to help nuclear, to try to help renewable, to try to help electricity. We are for biomass and natural gas and will be for sassafras if it helps provide the energy resources for this great Nation. We have the lowest-cost energy resource base in the world, and we have it because we believe in free markets and individuals working together in an entrepreneurial fashion to provide the goods and services in the energy sector that help makes us the most powerful and greatest Nation in the world. I hope that we would vote for this bill in a bipartisan fashion when it comes to final passage. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the full committee chairman, who has done just an absolutely outstanding job; and if we had the Chamber full of people, I would ask that we all stand and give him a round of applause. This is a good bill for America. Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee of Energy and Air Quality, the subcommittee of primary jurisdiction of H.R. 6, I recognize and acknowledge we will need to work further on some of the specifics in the bill. Next, I want to clarify section 16023, the ``native load'' section. We will want to clarify that the term ``equivalent transmission rights'' should be read to include ``firm, financial, and tradable transmission rights'', as that is our intent. I also acknowledge that the native load provisions may have unintended consequences in the region covered the Midwest Independent System Operator, and I want to continue to work to improve the savings clause so that does not undo the development of markets in that region to date. I note that we may need to clear up the electricity title (Title VI) of Division A. Among the technical changes needed may be inaccurate references to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and ERCOT utilities, as described in the Federal Power Act. Finally, I have not completed work with Members on a potential addition to Division E regarding Clean Coal. I will want to discuss with Members of the conference committee a potential provision on Clean Coal General Programs. This Congress has a great opportunity to expand the clean coal title to further promote and deploy new technologies that allow coal to be used as a power source for dramatically lower emissions.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, what about the Markey-Johnson amendment that would prohibit drilling in ANWR? Is that an amendment that the gentleman is pleased that the rule made in order?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition. I seek time only for purposes of controlling the time on this side.