Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to apologize to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). In the motion on the point of order, I was trying to be humorous and if I offended the gentleman in any way, I am prepared to ask that my own words be taken down, because the last thing in the world I want this body or the country to feel is that I do not have the utmost and total respect for the gentleman from Nevada and the fine work that he has done on behalf of his constituents.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to move a resolution that would move forward the process that would ultimately result in a site being selected to store high-level nuclear waste that has been generated primarily by our civilian nuclear reactors in this country. Those reactors have been generating electricity for the American people for the last approximately 40 years. Today, 20 percent of our Nation's electricity is generated by nuclear power generators. At the time those power plants were put into operation, there was not a plan on where to store the high-level nuclear waste, because at that time it was assumed that the Congress and the industry and the various advocacy and stakeholder groups would mutually agree on a plan and a site, or sites. That has not happened for a number of reasons. Nuclear power has become very controversial. The issue of where to store the waste has been used as a surrogate on whether one was for or against nuclear power, which brings us to today. In 1987, we passed a series of amendments in an appropriations bill that said we are going to store this waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Since that time, we have spent approximately $7 billion trying to determine whether, in fact, that was a wise decision. There have been hundreds of thousands of studies, hundreds of thousands of man-hours spent conducting studies, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, to determine whether it is safe to store the high-level nuclear waste out at Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy submitted a recommendation to the President; the recommendation to the President said that they think it is safe. The outside policy review board that has the watchdog opportunity has said that that recommendation is weak to moderate, but the technical issues that are outstanding can be resolved in the next several years. So this resolution simply says the Governor's objection to that decision, the Governor of Nevada, the State in which the repository would be located, not withstanding that the Congress goes on record telling the Department of Energy that it can go ahead and go forward with the licensing application process to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Now, I would point out that there is nothing absolutely certain in life except death. We are all going to die. In the interim, we want to make our lives as positive and as constructive as possible; and in the modern era we want energy sources that are safe and efficient and reliable to make our lives as constructive as possible. Those that oppose the repository at Yucca Mountain because it is not 100 percent certain that over the next 400,000 years there is absolutely no way that something wrong can go wrong are asking for the impossible. I cannot guarantee that when I walk out of this Chamber to go back to my office, if I cross the street, that a car will not hit me. I do not think it will, but I cannot guarantee that I will not have some sort of an accident just walking from here back to the Rayburn Office Building. The probabilities are that I will not. If we look at all the scientific evidence that has been prepared on Yucca Mountain, it shows that to the degree that men and women can provide certainty, we are certain that for the next 10,000 years the repository at Yucca Mountain will be safe. So I would ask when it comes time to have this vote that we vote to send this resolution to the other body and we say that we believe that we need to make a decision to have a repository, and that repository should be at Yucca Mountain. Then we will work together in a bipartisan fashion to guarantee the transportation issues, to guarantee the safety and scientific issues so that the repository can be built and maintained in a safe and effective fashion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this week and today we are trying to focus attention on the problem of asthma in the United States. I am one of the original sponsors, and to this day, chief sponsors of Asthma Awareness Day. Senator Kennedy in the other body and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) in this body, and a number of other House Members and Members of the other body are trying to focus attention on what we can do to help alleviate the causes of asthma and the symptoms of asthma and bring attention to the fact that millions and millions of Americans, both adult and young children, are afflicted by this. The good news is that most asthmatics can lead normal, healthy lives without any really negatives consequences. I have a son, Brad Barton, who is 31. He has had asthma all his life, and yet he in high school was a star member of his tennis team and active in academics and athletics in his high school. He is now married and the father of two fine children my two grandsons, Blake and Brant. He has had inhalers and various medicines that he has taken in his entire life, but he leads a normal healthy life. So we are holding a number of events. We had a reception last evening over at Union Station. We have another reception this afternoon, and we are just trying to bring attention to the fact that there is a lot that can be done on asthma. And there is a lot we can do to help those who have asthma to make their lives full and productive. One of the most famous asthmatics today is Jerome Bettis, the running back for the Pittsburg Steelers. He is one of the chief national spokesmen to bring attention to the affliction of asthma and how he can function as a member of the Pittsburg Steelers and be as effective and have the all-pro running back that he has had. Mr. Speaker, I am just here to encourage all of my Members as we try to educate the American people about asthma and to continue the research and to find a way to prevent it and cure it and to help develop medicines that can make it easier for those of us who have it. Asthma affects nearly five million children and causes more than 5,000 deaths each year. It is the leading cause of missed school days, yet many schools do not allow students to carry and use prescribed lifesaving asthma medication. When physicians prescribe inhalers, they instruct patients to carry them at all times. Asthma can happen any time, anywhere--in the classroom, on the playground, or in the lunchroom--so it's important for students to have immediate access to their inhalers. To date, the Allergy and Asthma Network--Mothers of Asthmatics (AANMA) has found only 17 states that have developed laws or policies which protect children's rights to carry inhalers in school. Schools that restrict or revoke this right, put themselves and students with asthma at risk. They also put other students at risk of witnessing a potentially life-threatening asthma attack. I strongly support children's rights to carry inhalers at school, and would urge States and local school districts to make this lifesaving decision for their students.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Senate bill, S. 1094, presented in the Senate by my good friend, the Senator from Texas, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is on the floor with us today. Without her untiring work, we would not be here passing this bill on Blood Cancer Day. She has worked, I think, in a very positive, cooperative way. It is very rare for the Longhorns and the Aggies to work together, but on this bill the head Longhorn came to one of the head Aggies and we have made it happen. There are a number of other people we need to thank: Obviously, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for allowing the bill to come on the suspension calendar; the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown); and the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has worked on this. We have a number of distinguished visitors watching the proceedings today, I am told, including Senator Hutchinson's brother, Alan Bailey, who has a form of blood cancer. We also have the distinguished former Congresswoman and Vice Presidential candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, who has fought a courageous battle against blood cancer. Kathy Guisti is the President of the National Myeloma Association. And, as we pointed out, this is named in honor of former Congressman, Joe Moakley, and former Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, who is with us today. Various forms of blood cancer afflict over 100,000 Americans every year. 60,000 Americans die of the disease. It is a disease that can strike with sudden swiftness and extreme ferocity. Some of the more common forms we know of are leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma. If you have this disease in your family, it is a heartache to have to try to face up to it. My brother, the late John Barton, died of liver cancer, so I know from a personal perspective how tragic any kind of cancer is. But with the passage of this bill that Senator Hutchinson has worked so hard for, we are going to begin to fight back. This would create an educational program, a research program, the Joe Moakley Research Excellence Program, and the Geraldine Ferraro Cancer Education Act. We can educate Americans all around the country. We can encourage the National Institutes of Health to provide more funding for research and education and outreach, and hopefully some day find a cure and find treatments for those that are already afflicted with the disease. So I want to thank my good friend from Dallas, Texas, Senator Hutchinson, for moving the bill, I want to thank my good friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), for putting it on the suspension calendar, and I would encourage all Members to vote for it in the affirmative when we are given that opportunity. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the great contributions made to our society by civil engineers. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) will soon celebrate its 150th anniversary as a professional organization. In recognition of this anniversary, I believe it is fitting to commend the ASCE for leadership in their profession. Civil engineers built railroads, bridges, and highways for commuting. They deliver clean water for drinking, and provide buildings for working and living. While these are just a few examples, they highlight the necessity for civil engineering in our everyday lives. As a fellow engineer, I am proud to recognize such a vital professional organization. The ASCE has a membership of more than 125,000 civil engineers, and continues to be a major resource to the engineering profession. The Society's programs, publications, exhibits, competitions and conferences are just a small portion of the services this great organization renders to prepare civil engineers to compete in today's world and to educate the nation on the newest developments in the profession. In recognition of its 150th anniversary, ASCE is highlighting a wide variety of programs and exhibits focusing on educating the public about the ways civil engineering shapes each person's life. The celebration kicked-off in October 2001 and will continue through the end of 2002. An array of activities will highlight the year honoring past accomplishments, examining the current climate, and determining the future path of the profession. The Society's anniversary will not only accent ASCE, but also showcase the accomplishments of the entire civil engineering profession. In honor of these many accomplishments, I have introduced a Resolution honoring the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on the facade behind me, there is a quote from Daniel Webster that begins, ``Let us develop the resources of our land.'' That is what we are about today. I was a cosponsor of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I was on the conference committee where we worked out the final details with the Senate. In 1996, the Internet was in its infancy and we did not explicitly say in that Act how to legislate on broadband. So today we are on the floor to perfect the Telco Act of 1996. The issue is complex, but you can boil it down to several somewhat simplistic elements. Number one, everybody who wants to provide broadband through the Bell operating companies today has the right to do that. The question is what the reimbursement is to the regional Bell operating companies. The way the FCC has interpreted the current Act, they have to do it at a below-market rate. So, obviously, the regional Bell operating companies do not want to do it very much. This bill, if it passes, lets the Bells build out the broadband network but lets them charge a market rate to provide access. I think that is a good thing. I think that provides more competition. The second issue is the Internet providers, the long distance providers, the AT&Ts and MCIs and Sprints, would rather that the regional Bell operating companies do not get additional flexibility, so they oppose the bill. Again, if we pass the bill, we are going to have more competition sooner; and if the bill passes as we expect it to be amended, competitors will have access to their copper loop, competitors will have line sharing access, competitors will have voice access, and the cable companies will not be regulated any more than they are today. I urge passage for the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I want to give my colleagues a real world example under today's rules. Now, this is a Republican primary example; it is not Republican versus Democrat. There is a new seat down in Texas that my son is running in. He is running among six other primary Republicans, one of which spent $4 million to run in a primary in Houston 2 years ago, $4 million, and got beat by a gentleman who is sitting on this floor. Now, under today's campaign finance rules, if my son is able to get somebody on the telephone, I mean that is pretty good, just get them on the phone and talk to them for 15 minutes, he might be able to get them to send him a check for $1,000 in a race that he really needs to raise $1 million, and that is a thousand phone calls that he is just not going to get made. Now, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) says, let us at least raise this thing for inflation so that if my son can get somebody on the phone, he may be able to get $2,000. He is still not going to match the $4 million that was spent 2 years ago, but he may be able to double the efficiency. If we were talking about raising this to $100,000, some of my friends might have an argument against it, but going from $1,000 to $2,000, there is a real-world example, admittedly in a Republican primary, where this, if it were law today, would give a challenger candidate who is not a millionaire an opportunity to have a chance to get enough funding to at least be competitive. So I rise in strong support of the Wamp amendment, and I ask for its adoption.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 12 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I commend to my colleagues the following article: [From the Washington Times, Dec. 3, 2001] Caspian Pipeline Opens (By Christopher Pala) Almaty, Kazakhstan.--The first pipeline built to bring Kazakhstan's oil to world markets was dedicated in Russia last week, four months late and minus the presidents of the two countries through which it passed. Speeches delivered near the Russian port of Novorossiisk called the 940-mile steel tube a symbol of international cooperation, and that it is indeed: The Russian Federation and American and Russian oil companies have provided most of the $2.6 billion cost, and Russia stands to earn $20 billion over the 40-year life of the pipeline. But the pipeline is also: The first step to Kazakhstan's ambitious plan to deliver 3 million barrels a day in 15 years to world markets and become one of the top three oil exporters in the world. A mutibillion-dollar bet by Chevron Corp. in 1993 that is now set to pay off handsomely. An example of the difficulty of doing business in Russia. Proof that with perseverance, it can be done. The pipeline, built by the 11-member Caspian Pipeline Consortium, known as CPC, starts on the desert shores of the northeast Caspian Sea at Tengiz, Kazakhstan, the world's sixth-largest oil field. The longest 40-inch pipe in the world then curls around the Caspian before striking west across the broad plains north of the Caucasus range and ends at a tanker terminal 10 miles west of Novorossiisk. When completed, at a final cost of $4 billion, it will be able to carry up to 1.3 million barrels per day (bpd), more then double its initial capacity. Peak a decade off Output at the Tengiz field, now 270,000 bpd, is not expected to rise to a peak of 700,000 bpd until the end of the decade, said Tom Winterton, head of the Tengizchevroil consortium exploiting the field. Thus, the pipe has plenty of room for oil from other fields--and there lies one of the major disputes that have delayed the opening. When Chevron took over Tengiz from its post-Soviet managers, it created one consortium for the oil field and a second one to build a pipeline to the Black Sea. For the first few years, Tengizchevroil, in which Chevron owns 50 percent, diligently overcame such obstacles as the extreme depth of the reservoir (2\1/2\ miles below the surface), its high content of poisonous sulfur dioxide and the high pressure at which the oil was flowing. Production steadily climbed from 25,000 bpd and the jinx that gave Tengiz the longest uncontrolled blowout in soviet history was overcome. But in those years, the pipeline consortium got strictly nowhere in its efforts to persuade Russia and its pipeline monopoly Transneft to allow an outlet through Russia to the Black Sea. It was not until 1996 that two newly created Russian oil giants, Lukoil and Rosneft, bought into the consortium while the Russian government took a 24 percent share. Then things started moving. Construction took less than three years. Transneft Director Semyon Vainshtock tried to fight a rear- guard battle, insisting that what was bad for Transneft was bad for Russia, but the pipeline consortium, headed by Russian Sergei Gnatchenko and assisted by Chevron's Fred Nelson, the consortium's deputy general director for projects, argued that Russia stood to gain from the added production in a non-zero-sum game. That was just the beginning. Rocky road so far ``We had to go through five Russian local governments,'' Mr. Nelson said recently. ``It wasn't always easy.'' Twice, customs disputes halted the flow of the oil at the Russia-Kazakhstan border. This year, the biggest dispute among CPC members turned ugly and public when it derailed the opening ceremony that had been scheduled for Aug. 6 with the Russian and Kazakh presidents in attendance. Tengiz oil, until the pipeline was built, was exported entirely through Russia and mostly by rail. Part of its highly prized light ``sweet'' crude (which sells for up to a dollar a barrel more than Brent, the benchmark crude oil) was mixed along the way with less desirable Russian crudes to make ``Urals Blend,'' which trades at nearly a dollar below Brent. ``The Russians got a free ride for years,'' said a diplomat familiar with the situation. But for the pipeline, Chevron insisted on instituting what is called a quality bank--a system penalizing those who would add low-quality crude to the mostly Tengiz CPC Blend. Quality banks are used in most places in the world where low- and high-quality crude oils are blended in pipelines, but the Russian partners relented only three days before the planned inauguration date, which was to coincide with the loading of the first tanker. The ceremony already had been canceled. Then, the port authority of Novorossiisk extended its jurisdiction to the deserted piece of coast where holding tanks are buried near the end of the pipeline. There is no port: floating hoses are used to fill tankers moored offshore. The move allowed the port authorities to demand a hefty port tax. Negotiations caused further delays. Eventually, said oil analyst Ivan Mazalov at Troika Dialog in Moscow, ``They were bargained down quite a bit.'' Other delays pushed back the date of the loading of the first tanker to Oct 13. By the time all the difficulties were ironed out, five fully loaded tankers had weighed anchor and sailed over the Black Sea to the Bosphorus Strait, across the Sea of Marmara, through the Dardanelles to the Mediterranean Sea, and on to refineries in Europe. A sixth one was loading when the ceremony took place. Chevron gambled, won While Russia and the United States ended up represented by deputy ministers, Chevron-Texaco sent Chairman David O'Reilly and the incoming and outgoing vice chairmen of the world's fourth-largest oil company. That was not surprising: Both the pipeline and the giant oil field it serves are Chevron's babies, multibillion-dollar gambles that finally are paying off. As the foreign biggest investment in the former Soviet Union, oil field and pipeline are testimony that with perseverance, Westerners and Russians can work together. ``CPC is a bellwether project for successful international cooperation,'' Mr. O'Reilly reportedly said at the ceremony. ``It demonstrates the confidence the international business community has to invest in Russia and Kazakhstan.'' But if Russia, Kazakhstan and world consumers can join Chevron in rejoicing at the pipeline's completion, Turkey has exhibited mostly concern. The extra tankers carrying Tengiz oil, which eventually will number three a week, will further clog the Bosphorus Strait that bisects Istanbul and increase the chances that the city of 12 million people some day will have to cope with a major oil spill or even a fire. But turkey is committed to upholding the 1936 Montreux Agreement and, barring a catastrophe, Caspian oil will be able to navigate the strait to reach European markets for the foreseeable future, analysts say.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in 1984 the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and myself were elected to Congress from adjoining districts. He started out sleeping in his congressional office, and I started out picketing then-majority leader Jim Wright, which the gentleman from Texas helped me do. He went on to become conference chairman of the Republican Conference and when the Republicans became the majority, majority leader. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is a man of big ideas. It was his bill that began to streamline our military base positions in this country. He is also a supporter of school vouchers and flat taxes. He came from can-do North Dakota, and he brags about that even though he now lives in Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) did come, he did do. I say well done to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in my previous remarks on H.R. 2983, the Price-Anderson Reauthorization Act of 2001, I stated that $187 million had been paid out in response to the accident at Three Mile Island. In fact, approximately $70 million has been paid out to date, and this amount is well within the plant's primary insurance policy required by the Price-Anderson Act.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2983) to extend indemnification authority under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Madam Speaker, I would take mild umbrage to the statement of my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), that this is an odoriferous piece of legislation. I think it is sweet smelling like a rose. But to the extent that it has offended his olfactory organs, let me simply say it is less odious than it was because of his efforts; and I want to commend him on those efforts. Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few points for the record. There has been some discussion in the debate, Madam Speaker, about a subsidy for the nuclear industry. Price-Anderson is nothing more than a last-resort indemnification of the nuclear power industry. In a similar fashion, we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation which guarantee $100,000 for every savings account and every bank account in this country. There is private insurance that has to kick in before that, but as a last resort the FDIC guarantees every depositor's account up to $100,000. I would also point out the Federal Housing Administration has a home mortgage program. Many first-time buyers get their mortgage through an FHA mortgage, which again guarantees that mortgage. There is private market with private insurance, homeowners insurance, but the FHA is the guarantor of last resort. Madam Speaker, I would also point out that in the mid-1980s when we had the collapse of the savings and loan industry, the Federal taxpayers, as guarantors of last resort, put $125 billion into the economy to guarantee mortgages that were failed and institutions in the S and L industry that failed. We hoped to recoup that money over time, but it is expected that somewhere between $125 billion and $500 billion was paid out to guarantee the solvency of the savings and loan industry in the mid-to-late 1980s. I could point to our farm programs where again we have price support programs in place to guarantee farmers some minimal financial support if the market does not operate as they had hoped that it will. So Price-Anderson, which has been on the books for over 50 years, was put into place to guarantee that in a very, very worst-case scenario there would be some guarantee if we had one of these worst-case catastrophes which we have not had. In the most serious incident that we had, the Three Mile Island incident, $187 million was paid out, well within the $200 million per reactor private sector insurance cap. So as I am standing on the floor today we have not had an instance where the Federal taxpayers have been at risk. As has been pointed out by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others, the bill before us is an improved bill. It has increased penalties for gross and willful misconduct by contractors. It has an elimination of profit in the case that something egregious is done by the contractor. So it is a better bill than the current law. We are on the verge of a new generation of nuclear power reactors that are safer, less expensive to operate, more efficient, will provide electricity, we hope, for future generations of American consumers. Now is not the time to change the Price-Anderson Act in a negative way. Instead, it is the time to improve it, to pass it with a strong bipartisan vote to the Senate, and that is exactly what this piece of legislation does. I again want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and others for their strong work on this, the committee staffs on both sides, my personal staff, especially my intern from the Nuclear Electric Institute, Mr. Jason Remer, for his strong work in this area. Finally, Madam Speaker, to pay off a wager that I had on the A&M- Texas game where I bet on the Aggies, my great team, and they unfortunately were on the low side of the score 24 to 7, I want to wish the Longhorns God speed this week in the Big 12 championship game against the Colorado Buffaloes and say that I cannot bring myself to say the Longhorn slogan but would say Go Longhorns.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rockwall, Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member of the Committee on Science and a former distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee that I chair, and one of the most distinguished Members of this body.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I agree, on behalf of the committee. We agree with the gentleman's assessment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman, and the committee agrees with what the gentleman just said.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2983, as amended.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts cannot say hello in 1 minute. I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ minutes.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).