Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I could not read the chart; and I am a supporter of solar photovoltaics. I have some concerns about the goals and dollar amounts, but the concept I am very supportive of. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to say to my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), that it is mild opposition. It is not head- in-the-sand opposition, but I have several questions and concerns. I am not going to ask for a rollcall vote. If it passes on a voice vote, we will work this out in conference. But I do want to point out some things. The bill before us authorizes $200 million a year for clean coal technology. Coal provides over 50 percent of our electricity. The Oberstar-Norton amendment provides $262 million a year for solar voltaic energy, which produces about four-tenths of 1 percent of our energy. That seems to me to be a little bit of an imbalance. On page 2 of the Oberstar amendment it says that the goal would be to install solar energy systems in 20,000 Federal buildings by the year 2010. That is an average of about 50 Federal buildings per congressional district. The only way we are really going to be able to do that is if we solar voltaic almost every post office in this country. If we go down to the bottom of the page on page 2, it says the total amount of photovoltaic electric energy they hope to generate is 150 megawatt hours. Well, if we take the $1.3 billion that it would authorize, and admittedly that is an authorization, but if we took that $1.3 billion, divided it with 150 megawatts, which is the goal, that is a cost of about $10 million per megawatt, $10 million. Now, to put that in perspective, a base load coal plant, a base load natural gas plant, even a base load nuclear plant, we are talking $500 per megawatt. So that we are putting a lot, a lot of money into admittedly a good program. Solar voltaics is a good program, but as the gentleman indicated, right now the best technology generates photovoltaic energy electricity at about 25 cents a kilowatt. A base station natural gas combined cycle plant generates at about 2 cents per kilowatt. So there are a lot of problems with the specific language in this amendment, but its goal is honorable. So I am going to work with the gentleman and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia in conference, but I want the gentleman to know that there are some major, major problems with the specifics in this language. The goal is noble, but the implementation may be somewhat flawed. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who, I believe, wants to speak in support of the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my eyes are getting old and tired. I cannot read the chart of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) from here. At the end of the chart, what are the dollars per megawatt or cents per kilowatt price at the low end of the curve at the right on the photovoltaic?

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for graciously, and I mean this, providing us copies of the amendment. The majority staff had the odd page copies but not the even page copies. So we appreciate it. That shows how closely we had been tracking this. So I am glad we got the entire amendment, and I appreciate that. The gentleman from Ohio has many good ideas on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and we have worked together on many of those ideas. This is not one of them. It is an idea, but just to put this in perspective, we use every day in this country 12 million barrels of gasoline, 12 million barrels. That is what we use to keep our transportation system going. The gentleman's amendment authorizes 20 million barrels; that is not even a 2-day supply. So even if this were implemented, it would be 1\1/ 2\ days' supply. So that is the first problem with it. The second problem, the gentleman very graciously says we are going to put a reserve in the Northeast, put a reserve in the Midwest, put a reserve in California and in two other places. That is five places. Somebody is going to get left out. If we put one in the Northwest and in the Southeast, then the Southwest gets left out. If you put one in the Southwest and the Southeast, then the Northwest gets left out. So we have got a little bit of a problem there. We have got a security problem. Do we really want to put a national gasoline reserve in place that is just an invitation for a terrorist target? We have got that problem. Then we have got the problem of overflow. If we do not use the gasoline, it becomes stale. Again, we are only storing 1\1/2\ days' supply, but we are going to be continuously changing this gasoline to make sure that it is fresh in case it needs to be used. That would probably cost more in the acquisition costs. So all in all this is not an idea whose time has come. The gentleman has other ideas that I would encourage him to pursue more vigorously, because even if this were to be implemented, I do not think it would have the intended effect. So I hope we would oppose the gentleman's amendment and work with him on some of these other amendments. But I thank him again for giving us the copies of the pages we did not have.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the electricity title before us in the bill has 10 titles. It has a title on transmission capacity. The Dingell substitute is silent. It has a title on transmission operation. The Dingell substitute is silent. It has a title on reliability. The Dingell substitute is silent. It has a title on PUHCA. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) does refer to PUHCA. It has a title on PURPA. The Dingell substitute is silent. It has a title on renewable energy. The Dingell substitute is silent. Renewable energy includes net metering, renewable energy production. The Dingell substitute is silent. It has a title on market transparency, round trip trading prohibition and enforcement. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) does address market transparency and enforcement. It has a title on consumer protection. The Dingell substitute is silent. It has a title on merger review and reform and accountability. The Dingell substitute is silent. It has a title on economic dispatch. The Dingell substitute is silent. Mr. Chairman, the Dingell substitute is not a substitute. It may be well intentioned where it does address, but out of 10 titles, it addresses 1\1/2\ titles of the electricity title. We should reject it and adopt the compromise bipartisan electricity title that has been worked out over the last 4 years in subcommittee and full committee, and I would hope that we would reject the Dingell substitute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I think we should point out that the Committee on Rules made in order the Dingell amendment as a substitute, as a substitute for the electricity title. We should commend our chairman on the Committee on Rules for doing that. Having said that, this is not a substitute; this is an expansion of Federal authority over natural gas and electricity generators and transmitters anywhere in this country, regardless of their size, if it is deemed that they have directly or indirectly used any means that would employ any fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may prescribe as necessary or appropriate, any entity. Now, the electricity title in the bill has bent over backwards to develop a compromise that protects States, protects small co-ops, protects small municipalities against FERC jurisdiction. The Dingell substitute right off the bat says ``any entity.'' It then goes further. Not only the FERC, but Federal courts, can prevent these entities from distributing or transmitting or generating electricity or natural gas. Then it goes even further and says a foreign court, a foreign court, on page 11, I believe of the Dingell substitute, a foreign court: ``such entity has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor,'' misdemeanor, ``or of a substantially equivalent crime by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction which the court finds.'' I do not understand that. But if we read that literally, a U.S. energy supplier that tried to sell electricity in Iraq and was convicted in a Saddam Hussein court could be prohibited in the United States of America from transmitting or generating electricity or natural gas. The Dingell substitute is silent on reliability. The Dingell substitute is silent on siting. The Dingell substitute is silent on the ability to create new grids around this country. It says nothing about RTO, Regional Transmission Organization policy. It is not a substitute; it is an attempt to be punitive towards any entity in this country that is engaged in the generation and transmission of electricity or natural gas. It may be well intentioned, but it is totally misguided. I hope we will reject it out of hand.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in Corsicana, Texas, there is the first commercial oil field of any size outside of the State of Pennsylvania. It is in my district. It began producing oil in the early 1900s. The old Mexia field, the Bryan College Station field, these are all fields that are either in my district or in my old congressional district. They have been producing oil for generations and generations. In the Bryan College Station field, that field goes through the water table for Bryan College Station. Over 200 producing wells, no environmental problems. Now, somehow it is okay to produce in those fields in my home State, but it is not okay to produce in ANWR where there are fewer people per square mile than there are various animals. And we have shown in Prudhoe Bay that the animal habitat actually flourishes with oil production. I cannot understand why we are opposed to producing between a million and a million and a half barrels a day for 30 years. I would hope we would oppose this amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to come back to the microphone, please. I just want to ask my good friend if he is going to support the Boehlert- Markey amendment that was made in order under the rule on CAFE. Is that one of the amendments that he is glad the rule made in order?

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So it is not a totally bad rule. There are some amendments made in order under the rule that the gentleman thinks are appropriate?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the bipartisan H.R. 6 comprehensive energy policy bill that is before this body at this point in time. Our Nation badly needs a comprehensive energy policy. This bill achieves it. Our economic competitiveness, our national security, and our way of life will all be helped if this bill becomes law. The bill before us today touches nearly every facet of our energy sector, including electricity. The first 68 pages of the bill are bipartisan measures on conservation and energy efficiency. They were agreed to during the energy conference last year. The bill also targets a diverse and stable portfolio of production so that we are never overly dependent on any one fuel. For our Nation's security, we will reauthorize and expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We will open for environmentally safe production the portion of Alaska that Congress long ago set aside for that very purpose. We will act upon the President's call in the State of the Union address for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the fueling infrastructure that will be needed to make them successful. Today's bill is better than H.R. 4 that passed the last Congress. We include bipartisan reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, a much more sensible Renewable Fuels Standard, real changes to the hydroelectric relicensing process, and badly needed electricity reforms. Legislation before the House today puts our Nation on a forward path towards better electricity markets. It should further the transition to more effective electricity markets in the following ways: It would increase transmission capacity; it would improve the operation of existing transmission; and it would make wholesale competition even more successful than it currently is today. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be one of the authors of this bill. I am very proud of the work that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), my full committee chairman, has done, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has done, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) has done and other members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce have done. I am also very pleased with the work product of the other three authorizing committees that are bringing us this joint bill. This will actually help our Nation. In my opinion, it is the most comprehensive positive energy bill that has been before the Congress in the last 50 years, and I cannot do anything but strongly, strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished full committee chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to comment just briefly on the electricity title in the bill. We did not have an electricity title in last year's bill because we really did not have a consensus on the issue and we were hopeful that by moving it as a stand-alone bill, we might could get that consensus. Since that time, we have worked very hard with the very stakeholders, the investor-owned utilities, the municipalities, the co- ops to try to get consensus. I will not say we have total consensus, but I think we have solved some of the most vexing issues. We have volunteer participation in what are called RTOs, regional transmission organizations; we have an excellent reliability title; we have some transparency rules to try to prevent what happened in California several years ago in the spot market for electricity; we have native load protection for the closed States that would rather not open their States to retail competition; we have some exemptions for the more open States that are voluntarily developing these RTOs. All in all it is a very balanced title; it is a very good title. It would help the electricity industry regain market confidence and would help get more transmission lines built.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Committee on Rules for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible support of the rule for H.R. 6. I would like to point out a few facts. There are 22 amendments made in order under this rule. Fifteen of these 22 are either minority-sponsored amendments or bipartisan amendments that are sponsored by a member of the minority party and the majority party, 15 out of 22. That is over two-thirds of all the amendments that are going to be debated on the House floor either have a minority sponsor or a minority and a majority sponsor. I think that is exemplary in terms of bipartisanship. I would also point out that we have made in order under this rule 1\1/2\ hours of general debate and 6 hours of debates on the amendments. That is 7\1/2\ hours of debate on H.R. 6. That is approximately double the average amount of time that is made in order under the House rules for authorization bills of this type. So I think the Committee on Rules has acted in a very appropriate fashion to make in order a large number of amendments, 22 amendments, which I believe are more amendments than were made in order for the bill last year. Again, 15 of the 22 have a minority sponsor or a minority and a majority sponsor. Let me talk about the base bill. H.R. 6 is a combination of bills that have come out of the Committee on Ways and Means that deal with the tax issues for energy; the Committee on Energy and Commerce, where the bulk of the bill originates from, and deals with the basic energy policy of this country; the Committee on Resources, which deals with the issue of ANWR and our Federal lands use; and the Committee on Science, which deals with the R&D component of our energy policy. I know the Committee on Energy and Commerce passed its bill on a bipartisan basis 36 to 17, with all the Republicans voting for it and 6 of the 23 Democrats that voted that night voted for it, and I believe the other bills also had bipartisan majorities as they came out. What the bill attempts to do is set a broad-based energy policy for this country for all of our conventional energy sources and our emerging new energy resources, and combine that with a very comprehensive set of conservation and renewable environmental protections, and then begin to invest in the future in terms of the emerging issues like the hydrogen fuel initiative. For the first time in the House, we have, I think, a very, very comprehensive title on electricity. Fifty percent of our energy is generated in the form of electricity, and in the bill that we reported out last year we did not have an electricity title. This year we not only have an electricity title, we have an electricity title that has been voted on on a bipartisan basis in subcommittee, and it has been voted on on a bipartisan basis in full committee. What this electricity title would do if it becomes law, it would create a national transmission system for the 21st century for the movement of electricity around the country. It does this without violating States' rights. There are no Federal mandates in the electricity title where a State has to do this, a State has to join a regional transmission organization, a State has to allow Federal siting decisions. In fact, there is specific protection on the native load of closed States and those States that do not wish to subject their native load to any kind of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction. So the electricity title which has been, at least in the bill from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the most controversial part of the bill, I think has been well tested and modified and amended so it would address many of the needs of Members on both sides of the aisle. On the hydroelectric reform title that came out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), is absolutely correct in that the House adopted a provision on hydro reform in last year's bill that he was very supportive of and very active in helping to reach a compromise. We took what we did in last year's bill and built on it. The primary difference between last year's bill and this year's bill on hydroelectricity reform is that we took the situation where we have a mandatory condition, that a Federal agency can set a mandatory condition to renew a license of an existing hydro project. Under current law, that Federal agency, there is no appeal of it; there is really no alternative input to that setting of that mandatory condition. This year's bill says there has to be an alternative allowed if the applicant wishes to put forward an alternative, and I think that is an improvement. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible support and hope that we would pass this bill in a bipartisan fashion.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, who is the bicycle amendment from?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the full committee chairman, we rise in strong support of the Barrett amendment. This amendment was included in the House-passed energy bill in the last Congress. It would require the Secretary of Energy to study the feasibility of developing commercial nuclear energy production facilities at existing DOE sites. I and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) are strong advocates for nuclear power. The energy bill before us today includes a comprehensive 15-year reauthorization to the Price-Anderson Act, which would allow a new generation of nuclear power plants to be built in America. We believe that the existing infrastructure in many Department of Energy sites may be ideal for the development of new nuclear power plants. In some cases, DOE sites have the space, the facilities, and the laboratory and engineering expertise and could be utilized to build a new plant. In any scenario where a new nuclear plant were to be built at a DOE site, we would expect that a substantial portion of the construction cost would be paid for by a commercial utility, which would greatly benefit from the DOE's infrastructure and expertise. We strongly support the amendment and urge Members to support it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are probike, and we rise in full support of this amendment. It passed the House in essentially the same form last year in H.R. 4. House and Senate conferees, however, did not reach resolution on this issue or other vehicle and Energy Policy Act issues. In assessing the program outlined by this amendment, both myself and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the full committee chairman, would note that the Federal Government has already made a very substantial investment in bicycling and walking. According to a 1999 Department of Transportation report, Federal spending on such activities rose from $6 million in 1990 to $238 million in 1997. I myself ride my bicycle back and forth to work in my hometown of Ennis, Texas, both to my congressional office and my campaign office. I would consider doing so here in Washington if we had a safe bicycle path between Arlington, Virginia, where I live, and the Nation's Capital. So we are in very strong support of the gentleman's amendment and hope that we can pass it by unanimous consent. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, our full committee chairman has been referred to on the floor this evening as the Energy Bunny. He certainly is that for his extreme support for the bill. We would have to refer to our gentleman from Wisconsin, the supporter of this amendment, as the Energy Badger, coming from the Badger State of Wisconsin, because he has badgered myself and the full committee chairman for the last 3 months in a very positive way on this amendment. So we do rise in support of the amendment. We have one concern about it. The gentleman's amendment, as it is currently written, has a requirement for specific vapor pressures. The gentleman knows that when we get to conference, myself and the full committee chairman reserve the right to modify the technical side of this amendment to make sure that it is actually implementable in the marketplace.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we understand that vulcanized fuels hurt consumers, and we support the gentleman's concept of going towards more uniform fuels that still meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to commend Subcommittee Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member Schakowsky, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) of the full committee, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) of the full committee for bringing this bill to the floor. I am a cosponsor. I think there are improvements that could be done to the bill, but I think it is a good step in the right direction. I have been in the Congress for 18 years. I have been on the Committee on Energy and Commerce for the last 16 of those 18 years. I was one of the Congressmen who led the fight in committee to make sure that caller ID could be used as an option for those that wished to know who was calling them. I also helped lead the fight in committee to make sure that if somebody was trying to call you and blocked their identity, you could block their call, that block-the-blocker technology. This is another step in that protection of privacy that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) talked about, so that when you are in the privacy of your home, if you choose to not have any unsolicited phone calls coming into your home, you can sign up for this. I have signed up for the do-not-call list in Texas. I have lived in the same house for the last 14 years. I have subscribed to the Dallas Morning News that entire time. And until recently I continued to get solicitation calls from the Dallas Morning News asking me to subscribe to the Dallas Morning News. Maybe with the do-not-call list in Texas and the do-not-call list at the national level, I will not get that call. Unfortunately, I will still get a phone call from Majority Leader Tom DeLay. I have raised substantial sums of money for the NRCC, but I do get solicitation calls asking me to help Majority Leader DeLay continue to raise necessary funds for various good political causes. That is one of the exceptions. So there are things that we could do to improve the bill, but it is a good step in the right direction and I hope that we pass this bill on a bipartisan basis unanimously because it is a good piece of legislation. Again I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for his excellent leadership and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for her leadership on this necessary piece of legislation.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, February 12, 1973, I was a graduate student at the Krannert School in Purdue University up in West Lafayette, Indiana, just another day for me; for Lieutenant Colonel Sam Johnson, it was the first day he had been able to breathe free air in over 7 years. If we look in the dictionary under ``patriot,'' we ought to see Sam Johnson. If we look in the dictionary under ``hero,'' we ought to see Sam Johnson. Director of the Top Gun school; Thunderbird pilot; decorated for two wars, Vietnam and Korea; holder of two Silver Stars; two Legions of Merit; the Distinguished Flying Cross; one Bronze Star with Valor; two Purple Hearts; four Air Medals; and three outstanding unit citations. By any means he is a hero. He is an American patriot. He is my friend. I am glad he is in the House of Representatives. God bless you, Sam and Shirley Johnson.