Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wasn't planning on speaking on this bill. But I was listening in my office to the debate between the proponents and opponents of the bill and felt moved to come over and try to answer some of the questions that the opponents have asked of the bill. EPA is supposed to be a fair referee. They're supposed to say: If it's a strike, it's a strike; if it's a ball, it's a ball; if he's out, he's out; if he's safe, he's safe. But the Obama EPA is not a fair referee. It's not a fair umpire. The Obama EPA has a preconceived--what I consider to be a radical environmental agenda, and they appear heck- bent to impose it on the American people, whether there is a scientific rationale or not. As Mr. Olson of Texas just pointed out, the President, as a candidate, said that he basically wanted to try to make it impossible to build any more coal-fired power plants in America. When he became President, he appointed a regional administrator down in Texas, Dr. Armendariz, who said that he wanted to try to put hydraulic fracturing out of business and brought a case against Range Resources in Texas that was thrown out on its face because of the lack of evidence that there was any environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing, in this specific case in Parker County. You had the civil servant at the EPA early in the Obama administration, when they were considering their endangerment finding, which they had to impose in order to say they could regulate greenhouse gases, they had a career civil servant who sent a detailed, I think 50- or 60-page analysis of the proposed endangerment finding and basically said it was hogwash. And he got back emails from within the White House and the higher rankings at political subdivisions of the EPA that said, Don't tell us the facts. We've already made up our minds.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. This same Dr. Armendariz made a comment not too many years ago that he wanted to crucify industry. He has since resigned because of those comments. Those of us who support the McKinley motion to instruct do so because we don't think the current EPA is fair. Sometimes we have to tell the EPA what to do because they seem to be incapable of applying basic scientific methods, scientific principles. They want to impose a radical environmental agenda, apparently. And some of us don't think that's right, and we don't think it's good for the American people and the American economy. So I strongly support what my good friend from West Virginia is doing because it at least makes it possible for a source that, for years and years and decades, has been used without any problem at all to continue to be used. And I think that's a good thing. So I rise in support. I thank the gentleman for the time, and I hope the House will adopt his motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou will be inaugurated for the second and final time on Sunday, May 20th. In addition to its continued democratic development, Taiwan has undergone numerous unprecedented economic, travel and tourism changes--between itself and mainland China--since President Ma first took office four years ago. In July 2008, just over two months after taking office, President Ma launched the first regularized direct flights across the Taiwan Strait since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. Such flights now number 558 per week, having greatly eased the burdens of Taiwanese living and working in mainland China. It's also made life much easier for American tourists and businesspeople crossing the Strait instead of having to change planes in Hong Kong, or another third party port, as they once did. And in 2010, Taiwan enacted its Economic and Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with mainland China that zeroed out tariffs on a number of Taiwan exports to the mainland. Further ECFA liberalizations will follow. ECFA's allowed Taiwan companies to tap mainland consumer markets while allowing them to stay in Taiwan and trade from their own home base. ECFA's further offered Taiwanese greater consumer choice at more affordable prices, while additionally uncovering opportunities for U.S. companies that have operations on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. It's thus no wonder the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei has, after years of calling for such changes, wholeheartedly applauded President Ma's economic openings. Slowly but surely, Taiwan's steadily reinserting itself into the global economic supply chain, strongly making its case for a resumption of Trade and Investment Framework Agreement talks with the United States. The influx of mainland Chinese tourists to Taiwan, allowed since 2008, has boosted the island's economy while also exposing mainlanders to Taiwan's free society and vibrant democracy. This fact was most notable during Taiwan's January 14th presidential and legislative elections won by President Ma and his Kuomintang (KMT) Chinese party. Visiting mainlanders were mesmerized by Taiwan's televised debates and dueling public events, and their some of their cohorts back home even took to blogging about it. Last year, 1.8 million mainland Chinese tourists visited Taiwan. That's 30% of all 6.08 million tourists who visited Taiwan in 2011. On this, his second inauguration, I ask my colleagues to not only congratulate President Ma on his inauguration, but also on his openings to mainland China that have not just benefited Taiwan companies and consumers, but also U.S. economic interests and enterprises in the region.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule. I think the number of amendments that they've made in order is consistent with Speaker Boehner's policy of running an open House. Unfortunately, one of those amendments that was not made in order is the Barton-Markey amendment on privacy. I am going to vote ``no'' on the underlying bill because it does not protect the privacy of the individual American citizen. We do have a real threat, a cyberthreat, in this country. This bill is an honest attempt to deal with that threat; but absent explicit privacy protection against individuals, to me, that is a greater threat to democracy and liberty than the cyberthreats that face America. So unless they pull the bill and they revise some of the privacy protections, I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill. But on the rule, I do think we should vote for the rule.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the chairman. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. My friends, that is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, one of the original 10 in the Bill of Rights protecting, in writing, the privacy of the United States citizenry. I want to give Mr. Rogers and Mr. Ruppersberger an ``A'' for effort in terms of identifying the problem, but I have to give them an ``F'' for problem solution. The word ``privacy'' in the underlying bill is mentioned one time, and that in passing. There are no explicit protections for privacy. In fact, there is an explicit exemption of liability to all people who engage in the collection, dissemination, transfer, and sharing of information. The cause of action, if you feel your privacy has been violated, is to go to district court and prove there was willful and knowing sharing of your information without your permission. If you prevail in Federal district court, you get $1,000, or whatever it costs you. My friends, we have a real problem. I take the chairman at his word-- he's a former FBI agent--that he wants to solve this cyberthreat. I know he means it. But until we protect the privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem that they're trying to solve. Please vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to congratulate the Girl Scouts of the USA on their 100th Anniversary. With a mission to build, ``girls of courage, confidence, and character, who make the world a better place'' the Girl Scouts have served over 50 million women in the United States. From the first ever Girl Scout troop created in 1912, the Girl Scouts have sought to instill girls and young women with the ability to be both self-reliant and resourceful and I believe very few organizations have shown the capacity to foster leadership in our nation's girls like the Girl Scouts of the USA. The Girl Scouts have proven themselves to be an organization of action. With a goal of fostering leadership, the statistics alone speak to the overwhelming success of the Girl Scouts. Over half of my female colleagues in both the House and the Senate were Girl Scouts and over half of all female business owners in the United States were former Girl Scouts. I have no doubt that many of the 2.3 million girls currently involved with this dynamic organization will continue to live out their call to ``make the world a better place'' through their leadership, and I look forward to seeing what the next generation of dedicated Girls Scouts will accomplish. I am proud to join my colleagues in co-sponsoring H. Res. 460, Expressing support for designation of 2012 as the ``Year of the Girl'' and celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Girl Scouts of the USA.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman. Texas Congressmen don't often quote Shakespeare, but I'm going to attempt it. There's a line in Hamlet that goes something to the effect: Methinks the lady doth protest too much. And my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle seem to be protesting too much. It's a very modest bill, 20-something pages in length. It's basically a good government bill. The bill basically says that the FCC, before they issue a rule, they've got to actually put it out for public comment for at least 30 days. Then once they formalize it, they have to let people have another 30 days to comment on what they actually are proposing. Subcommittee Chairman Walden circulated a draft bill. To my knowledge, he circulated it to the entire committee and to the industry and the stakeholders. I know in my case I had a few modest suggestions that were incorporated in the bill. Then when it went to subcommittee, I offered an amendment that was accepted. He did the same process at full committee. It came to the Rules Committee. I'm told that there were 10 amendments that had been made in order, with eight of those by my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. We'll have that debate and the vote on those later today or tomorrow. So here you have a very modest bill with good government transparency reporting that brings the FCC into the 21st century on how to do business, and you would think that we're going back to the dark ages. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm in very strong support of the process, which is important, and also the policy and the legislation that has resulted from it. I would hope that on a bipartisan basis, at the appropriate time, we vote in the affirmative on H.R. 3309. It's a good piece of legislation. It can pass the Senate. It can be signed by the President, and it should be.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman. We have just heard an argument from one of the authors, if not the chief author, of the new health care law. So it's understandable that former Chairman Waxman would rise in indignant defense of his product and opposed to this bill. H.R. 5, the PATH bill, is in actuality a reasoned response to an irrational attempt to socialize health care in the United States of America. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, which this legislation repeals, is an independent 15-member panel appointed by the President, unless the President doesn't appoint it, in which case three of the President's chief advisers become the board. And if they don't decide to do it, then one person, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, has the authority when this kicks in in 2014 to make all kinds of decisions that directly impact health care in America. I don't think, and a majority of my colleagues don't think, that that's the way it should be done. So this bill in one paragraph--I think on page 24--repeals that section. That is a good start. It is not the end-all be-all, but it is a good start to regaining control of health care by individuals and the marketplace. The other thing this bill does is it puts in a medical malpractice reform that has been long overdue. The President, in his State of the Union, said he was for medical malpractice reform, but I am told that he has said he is not for this medical malpractice reform, just like he is not against the Keystone pipeline, but he called Senators to oppose it when it came up in the other body. We need medical malpractice reform. Independent observers have said that this bill, which Congressman Gingrey of Georgia is the original sponsor of, would save $48 billion over, I think, a 10-year period if enacted--$48 billion. That's real reform. It does not preempt States. It allows the States to continue their medical malpractice laws that they've already enacted. So I ask that we vote for this piece of legislation. And I thank the chairman and the subcommittee chairman and all of the Members who have made it possible.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding. I've been in the House, this is my 28th year, 14 years in the minority and now I'm in my 14th year in the majority. I don't believe I have ever voted against a rule when I was in the majority, but I'm going to vote against this one. I'm also going to vote against the underlying bill. I'm not saying anything disparaging about the leadership on both sides of the aisle and the leadership in both bodies, but we are taking money away from the Social Security trust fund and we are substituting an IOU that may or may not ever be repaid. So on principle alone, I think we should at least shoot straight with the American people. So I will vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. On the rule, when we became the majority, we, the Republicans, we promised the American people that we would be more open and more transparent than the previous majority that was headed by Speaker Pelosi; and one of our primary promises was that we would give the American people 3 days, or 72 hours, before any bill was voted on the House floor. This rule waives that principle. And I know it's expedient and I know that there is majority support, as you can tell by the debate for both political parties on this bill, but I think to go back on a principle to the American people, that what we vote on, especially bills that are very important, should have enough time that people can look at what's in the bill. I don't think that's something that you compromise for political expediency. So I will vote ``no'' against this rule for the first time in my career in the House of Representatives as a member of the majority when a majority rule is up, and I would hope that this is a one-time exception that we violate the principle that we promised when we became the majority.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding. I am actually here to speak on Mr. Markey's amendment, the previous amendment. I do want to oppose the amendment of my good friend from Chicago, Mr. Rush, but I think Mr. Terry eloquently made the case as to why it is not in order at this point in time. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the previous amendment that Mr. Markey offered, which would restrict the use of both crude oil and refined products that come in from the Keystone pipeline to have to be sold in the United States. It goes without saying that if it's crude oil it would make absolutely no sense to transship it through the Keystone pipeline to the gulf coast and then put it in a tanker to go overseas. If you're going to export crude oil, it makes much more sense to export it directly from Canada. On the refined product end of it, you have to know one thing, which is that this crude oil that we would be importing from Canada is a heavy crude oil. We have some of the best refineries in the country that have been upgraded by billions and billions of dollars so that we can handle not just the light sweet crudes, like West Texas Intermediate or Saudi Light, but so we can handle these heavy crudes, like the Canadian crude oil, that would come down. When you have a barrel of crude oil, you can't just say, I want to make it all gasoline. You can make a lot of gasoline, but you're going to end up having to make diesel oil and asphalt and a lot of other products. Our refineries are the best in the world at cracking these heavy crudes. As they come down through the Midwest to the Louisiana and Texas refineries, most of the refined products would be sold in the United States, but the United States is primarily a gasoline market. The European market, on the other hand, is primarily a diesel market. So, as our refineries have become better and more competitive, it makes sense not to put a restriction on the refined products but to let the market allocate it. It would actually create jobs in the United States. We could ship some of these refined--primarily diesel, but some of the distillates could go to the European market. You'd get a better margin, create jobs, and protect jobs here in the United States. The primary market will always be the United States. Currently, about 75 percent of the crude oil that's refined on the gulf coast is used in refined products that are sold in the United States, but somewhere around 20 to 25 percent has been going to Europe, primarily the distillates and the diesel. The Markey amendment would turn that market on its head. It would be counterproductive to our economy, counterproductive to our consumers, and counterproductive to the general oil markets in the world. I know Mr. Markey is trying to do what he thinks is the right thing, but in actuality, we defeated his amendment in the committee, I think, 34 14 or something like this. We got eight Democrats--about 40 percent of the Democrats--to vote with us against the Markey amendment in committee. We ought to defeat it by that same margin here on the floor of the House of Representatives. At this point, I also want to thank Mr. Whitfield for his excellent leadership on this issue.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1981, I was applying for the White House Fellow's Program, which is a program where you work for the President of the United States for 1 year in one of the executive agencies like the Department of Energy or the Department of State. Our regional seminar was in Austin, Texas, at the LBJ School of Government. We had a lunch, and I sat at lunch with Hillary Rodham Clinton and a lady name Sarah Weddington, who was the lead attorney in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case. Little did I know then, back in 1981, that that case would still be the law of the land. Today, thousands of people from all over the United States came to protest that court case and asked the Congress to help overturn it. I'm a lifetime 95 percent pro-life voting Member, and I pledged to the crowd on the Mall that I would do everything I could in Congress to help overturn that decision. Life is precious. Life begins at conception, and we need to recognize that in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished policy chairman, and I thank the gentleman from Idaho for his evenhanded leadership in the debate. Mr. Speaker, I voted to send the Senate bill to conference, and I hope that both parties in both Chambers appoint serious conferees and really try to come up with a solution to the problem. I do want to point out a few facts that have been avoided on both sides of the aisle. It's really not a payroll tax. It is a Social Security dedicated trust fund tax. Since Franklin Roosevelt and the Congress created Social Security in the 1930s, payroll Social Security taxes go into the system by workers, employers, and self-employed individuals, and then benefits come out. Last year, for the first time, we reduced the amount of Social Security taxes going into the system and gave an IOU from the Treasury into the Social Security trust fund. The extension, whether it's for 2 months or 1 year, of that same policy this year is taking $120 billion to $150 billion out of the system that's real money and putting into it an IOU that we will pay at a date future. This would be like if I went to the doctor and the doctor tells me that I have got lung cancer, and I say, ``Well, what should I do, Doctor?'' and he says, ``Smoke more cigarettes.'' I mean, we paid more out in Social Security benefits this current year than we paid in, and this exacerbates the problem. I would ask that we come up with a permanent solution, Mr. Speaker, and not keep avoiding the problem.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss a project that is of utmost importance to the American people. As the gentleman from Nebraska just mentioned, it's called the Keystone XL pipeline. It is a proposal to extend an existing pipeline that starts in Canada, comes down through the Midwestern parts of the United States, into Oklahoma. The proposal is to extend that pipeline to the gulf coast of Texas and Louisiana. Why is this important to every American? Quite simply because we use lots of energy in America and because we do not produce as much as we use, so we have to import some of the energy. A lot of the energy we use comes from oil; and the Keystone XL pipeline, if built, would bring crude oil that starts up in Canada, down through the Midwest, to the gulf coast where we have about 50 percent of the United States' refining capacity. This is a good deal because, number one, Canada is an ally. We are importing quite a bit of oil right now from Venezuela, which has a government dictator, Mr. Chavez, who is somewhat hostile to the United States. We are importing oil from the Middle East. While we have allies in the Middle East, that is an unstable region in terms of its political stability. So, if we could get more energy from North America, from Canada, that would be a good thing for us. In the construction phase, this pipeline will create--the gentleman from Nebraska would know the exact number--somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 jobs, I believe. Once in production, with all of the spinoffs, we think up to 100,000 jobs would be created here in the United States. It would make us more secure. When you just look at the facts of it, you have to ponder why anybody would be opposed to it. I am puzzled as to why some of my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle are opposed to it. The State Department, under the leadership of Hillary Clinton, endorsed the pipeline. They did an impact statement that said it was positive. At one point in time, it looked like it was going to get approval and move through. The environmental groups came to Washington last fall. They surrounded the White House, and protested against President Obama. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the President decided to delay a decision until after the election, which is why we're here today. In what we call the ``jobs bill'' that passed the House 2 days ago, there is a provision in it that requires a decision to be made on Keystone within 60 days, I believe, of the enactment of the bill if the President signs it. The President has said he would veto that bill, which shows that, while he said back in the fall that he wanted to delay a decision, apparently he opposes it. So he opposes jobs. He also opposes energy security for the United States, which is an odd platform, in my opinion, to run on in a Presidential election campaign--but it's a free country, and if the President wants to go down that trail, he has the right to do that. So I believe that Keystone is a good idea. In my congressional district down in Texas, there are numerous pipelines. There are oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, gasoline refined product pipelines, water pipelines. We have never had any major problems with any of those pipelines from an environmental standpoint. The Keystone pipeline would be built using the absolute latest in technology and with the latest in safety, in inspections, in maintenance. I just cannot imagine why we would oppose it. So I am in strong support of it, and I want to thank Mr. Terry for his leadership on this issue. He has introduced bills. He has worked tirelessly in committee. He has worked tirelessly on the floor here. As I said, I hope that we get this done, but I am in very strong support. I want to thank him for his leadership, and I also want to thank Congressman Carter for his leadership. He's here today, and he has worked very diligently on the Keystone pipeline, too.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding. One of the arguments that's been made about the EAC, Mr. Speaker, is that it's the Federal Election Commission that ensures every American citizen's right to vote. If only that were true, Mr. Speaker. The National Association of Secretaries of State, which is the organization in each State that oversees the elections, has called for the dissolution of the EAC. The committee has heard firsthand testimony from Secretaries of State all across the country. Both in 2005 and again in 2010, the National Association of Secretaries of State has called for the dissolution of the EAC. If the organizations that are actually responsible in each State for holding the elections, Mr. Speaker, are asking that the Federal agency that's supposed to help them should be dissolved, I think it would behoove the Congress to listen to the States and in this case dissolve this commission.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from Alabama for her chairmanship of this historic debate, and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership and his willingness to yield me time. Madam Speaker, in January 1985, I held up my right hand, and I held my 2-year-old daughter in my left hand as I stood right out here in front of the podium and took the oath to be the Congressman of the Sixth Congressional District of Texas. As soon as I was sworn in, I signed my first bill and put it right over there in the hopper--the Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment. The total public debt that year was less than $5 trillion. In January of 1995, I took the oath of office and then led the debate on the Contract with America balanced budget amendment. We actually had two votes that day--one on the Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment, which got about 260-something votes, and then we came back and voted on a balanced budget amendment without the tax limitation provision, and it passed and went to the Senate. The public debt that day was a little under $8 trillion. Today, the public debt is $15 trillion--$10 trillion more than in January of 1985 and $7 trillion more than in January of 1995. How many years do we have to stand here and bemoan the fact that we need more courage or more this or more that and then pile up more public debt? The annual deficit this year, the deficit in 1 year, is more than the total Federal budget was in 1985--the total budget. I want to thank Mr. Goodlatte for bringing this bill forward. I want to thank the Republican leadership for putting it on the floor. We owe $15 trillion, Madam Speaker, and we're going to borrow another $1.5 trillion. Let's stop the madness. Let's vote for this amendment and send it to the Senate.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I just want to thank you for taking this time to speak on this subject. I think it's commendable that you would do that, and I think you're exactly right. I would encourage you to keep telling the truth as you know it. And how proud we are of you in the Texas delegation and certainly in east Texas, where you represent that part of the State so well. So keep up the good work.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to thank the most valuable player for the Republican baseball team this year for the time. I want to commend Mr. Doyle, the manager of the Democratic congressional team, for his victory, and commend Mr. Clay, Congressman Clay, whose St. Louis Cardinals are playing my Texas Rangers in the World Series, who proudly wears the St. Louis Cardinals uniform in the congressional game; that in the next two, Wednesday and Thursday nights, at least one of those games the Rangers win so that they can get their first World Series championship in history. And once that happens, between them, the Rangers and the Cardinals will have 11 World Series championships. I want to thank Congressman Hanna for his excellent work on this bill. I am a proud cosponsor of it. I have the Cooperstown Hall of Fame baseball cap on my head, which I am violating the rules of the House so I have to take it off immediately. But it is a great institution. Fourteen million Americans have visited it in person since it was established in 1939. I hope to take my son or sons--I have two sons and two grandsons--to that Hall of Fame in person in the very near future. It truly is a history of America, from Babe Ruth of yesteryear to my childhood heroes, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, people like that, Nolan Ryan, the current general manager of the Texas Rangers, to last night's heroes, Mike Napoli, who hit the home run in the bottom of the eighth inning, or hit the double, and hit a home run earlier, or Albert Pujols, who had three home runs Saturday night, I think 14 total bases, an amazing player who will certainly be in the Hall of Fame. This is truly a win-win for everyone. There is no cost to the taxpayer. The coin self-generates its funding. We can all celebrate the 75th anniversary of the Baseball Hall of Fame by supporting this legislation. And at the appropriate time I would encourage all the Members of the House of Representatives to do so. And again, go Rangers. Let's win the first World Series in Texas Rangers history this week.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman. I listened with interest to Mr. Waxman's remarks. Sometimes, when there's not a lot you can say substantively against an issue, you just put a lot of stuff out there and hope something sticks; and I would have to characterize most of his remarks as hoping that some of what he said sticks. The bill that he just spoke against is only 8 pages long. It's just 8 pages. And here's the gist of the bill. It asks the EPA, or directs the EPA, to go back and spend 12 to 15 months to take a look at the rule that it was about to propose, in other words, to go back and reanalyze it. I don't think that's gutting the Clean Air Act. Then it extends the compliance deadline for an additional 3 to 5 years. Now, that's substantive. That could result in some additional time, which I think is a good thing. But that, in and of itself, shouldn't be a showstopper. And then it asks that the EPA, when they adopt these new rules, to make sure that it's still allowable for cement manufacturing to use alternative fuels. Well, last time I looked, the Democratic Party was big on alternative fuels and supporting loan guarantees to develop those fuels, so that shouldn't be a showstopper. Then, finally, it says, whatever rule that you eventually adopt, you have to be able to implement it in the real world. Now, that is an amazing thing, that we want a regulation to be promulgated that you can actually achieve with real-world technology. In Texas, that's called common sense. I'm not sure what it's called up here. That's the bill. That's the bill. It's an 8-page bill. Now, Mr. Waxman also said that we've had 100 votes trying to do terrible things to the environment in this Congress. We've not had one vote, ladies and gentlemen, that changed an existing statute that's already in place, an existing standard. All these votes that my good friend from California talks about are a time-out and saying, wait a minute, before we make them even tighter, let's make sure they make sense. We've got an economy that's reeling. We've got unemployment at 10 percent. The compliance cost of this plethora of EPA regulations is in the billions of dollars annually. Billions. Billions. This particular Cement MACT rule, if implemented, would shutter somewhere between 15 to 20 percent of cement production in the United States. That's not trivial, folks. That's real. So what those of us that support the bill are saying is: Let's take a second look at it. Let's make sure that the rules have time to be implemented. Let's let alternative fuels be used, and let's let whatever regulation is ultimately implemented actually be achievable in the real world. I think that's worthy of support, and I would ask my friends on both sides of the aisle to support this when it comes up for a vote, I would assume sometime tomorrow probably. We've got 20-something amendments, so we're going to be here debating it. But this is a good piece of legislation. It's common sense. It would help our economy, and we would still get additional regulation that makes sense for cement kilns.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky. I would like to start off, Mr. Chairman, by making the point that the TRAIN Act doesn't change any existing environmental law or existing environmental rule. It simply delays proposed regulations that the EPA has promulgated and requires a study of some of those regulations before moving forward with them. My friends on the Democratic side would have you believe that we're going in and gutting the Clean Air Act. Nothing is further from the truth. I'm a cosponsor of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1991, and believe it or not I'm a strong supporter of an active EPA enforcing existing rules. I have a sister whose an enforcement attorney at the EPA in Dallas, Texas, and has about a 99 percent conviction rate. So Republicans want a strong EPA. We want strong air and water quality rules, but we also want, in this struggling economy, some common sense to be used before proposing new additional rules. There is no criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act that is currently becoming worse. In fact, the air is becoming cleaner, and that can be proven factually by monitoring. Every power plant in the country is monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, as are our chemical plants and all major source emitters. The data is there, Mr. Chairman. The question that I asked the EPA Administrator today, Lisa Jackson, is: Is it better, Madam Administrator, to keep an existing plant that is in compliance with existing air quality regulations in production, or is it better to close that plant because it can't comply with new, more stringent regulations that are being proposed? That's the question. And that's the reason that Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Whitfield and myself and others have either sponsored or cosponsored this legislation. We want strong air quality regulations. We want those rules enforced, but we don't want an EPA that continues to go stronger and stronger and stronger, regardless of the economic consequences. Now, Mr. Whitfield, tomorrow, is going to offer an amendment that replaces the proposed Cross-State Air Transport Rule with the CAIR regulation that the Bush administration promulgated back in the early 2000s, that he wants a delay of the proposed boiler MACT while we have a little more time to implement that. And he also has, at my suggestion, put into that amendment that we should use real monitored data as opposed to EPA-modeled data. How unique. Let's actually use what's happening in the real world. This monitoring versus modeling does not mean the EPA can't use models. We understand that you would have to be able to model the environment and the effects, but you can use real data to put in your model, not projected or hypothetical data. Real data. The Whitfield amendment is an important addition to the TRAIN Act, and I hope that we will support it. With regards to mercury, mercury has been reduced since the mid-1990s by 90 to 95 percent in the United States. The gentleman who spoke about mercury just now correctly stated the amount of mercury that's emitted, 96,000 pounds, 48 tons, 96,000 pounds. What he did not say is that that is less than 1 percent of the total mercury emitted in the country. Most mercury that's emitted is emitted by natural causes; and if you enforce the new proposed mercury regulation, you're going to get an improvement of .0004 percent, four- thousandths of 1 percent. For an average 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant, they emit about 70 pounds per year of mercury.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We've already reduced mercury emissions by 90 to 95 percent. To get another 90 to 95 percent is so cost prohibitive that you would probably just shut down some of those plants. In my opinion, that's not necessary. So what the TRAIN Act, in conclusion, is doing, Mr. Chairman, is just saying let's do a time-out. Before we go forward with any new regulations, let's make sure that there really is a true benefit that outweighs the cost. In my district alone last week, a closure was announced of one plant and one coal mine that are going to cost directly at least 500 jobs. That's not hypothetical. That's not modeled. That's real. And if all these plethora of EPA regulations go forward, you're going to see thousands of jobs eliminated, billions of dollars in cost, and very problematic improvements in health. Please vote for the TRAIN Act when it comes up for final passage.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on October 10, 2011 we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the emergence of the Chinese people from the dynastic rule that has permeated their history. Rising against the Qing rulers, Chinese Doctor Sun Yat-sen rose to free his people from totalitarian rule which in turn provided them the opportunity to produce the model Democracy that is Taiwan. Taiwan today is one of the leading democracies of the world, an economic power and a leading force for peace in the Pacific. Taiwan's present leader, Ma Ying-jeou is to be congratulated for his efforts and success in providing a climate for Peace and continuing the best traditions of the Chinese people. Congratuations to the people of Taiwan on the occasion of their 100th anniversary.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my friend from Florida for the time. Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by Congressman Hastings' remarks in opposition to the rule. This is a very fair rule. The Rules Committee received 13 amendments from the minority. They made in order 11 of those. One amendment was not germane and the other amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) would have restricted the oil to the United States and not allowed any of the product to be refined and sent overseas possibly, and that's a function that the Rules Committee felt should be a market function and not prohibited. So 11 amendments by the minority were made in order. This is a bill that came out of my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, on a bipartisan vote. All the Republicans supported it and between a fourth and a third of the Democrats supported it. The underlying thesis of the bill is pretty straightforward. Under current law, you're supposed to make a decision on pipeline permits between 180 and 90 days. The Obama administration EPA has had 2 years on their watch and 1 year under the Bush administration. EPA has had over 3 years if you count towards this September, next month, or right after August, and has not made a decision. The bill says make a decision. Make a decision. There is an existing pipeline. The Keystone pipeline would connect an existing pipeline that ends in the Midwest to the gulf coast. It would go to Congressman Poe's district in Port Arthur and go over into Louisiana. It would create tens of thousands of jobs in construction; it would bring approximately a million barrels of oil per day into the United States to provide competition for existing oil supplies; it would be refined in U.S. refineries; and most of the product, if not all, would probably be consumed by U.S. consumers. This is a good bill. This is a good rule. I would ask that we support the rule and then listen to the debate and hopefully decide to support the underlying bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. In my judgment, providing more fuel supply for our refineries would liken the possibility that prices would go down.