Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying bill. I have been a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee for 26, now 27 years. I'm a past chairman. I'm a past subcommittee chairman. I currently have the title of chairman emeritus. I participated under former Chairman John Dingell, former Chairman Billy Tauzin, former Chairman Tom Bliley, former Chairman Henry Waxman and now current Chairman Fred Upton, dozens of hearings on the Clean Air Act, markups, amendments, dozens of hearings on climate change, global warming and all of those issues. The bill before us, if the rule passes, does not change the Clean Air Act. It does not gut the Clean Air Act. It does not in any way prevent enforcement of the criteria pollutants that are regulated by the Clean Air Act. It simply says that greenhouse gases are not to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. And the reason it says that is that greenhouse gases are different than the criteria pollutants that are regulated under the Clean Air Act. First of all, greenhouse gases by definition are necessary for life. As I stand here, Madam Speaker, and speak, I am creating, as I breathe in and out through the respiratory process, CO2. So under the dictates of today's EPA, I am a mobile source polluter, because I am breathing. I am creating CO2. CO2, carbon dioxide, is necessary for life. Greenhouse gases are necessary to protect the environment. They have the ability to prevent heat from escaping into outer space, and that is what creates the temperature zone that allows life to exist. The radical environmentalists who think CO2 is a pollutant have decided amongst themselves--I don't know how they have done it-- but they have decided that the magic number for CO2 in the atmosphere should be about 350 parts per billion. We are currently at about 380 parts per billion. We know from records and from ice samples and tree rings and things like this of the past that we have had CO2 up in the thousands parts per billion in the past. So how 350 has become the magic number is beyond me. In any event, let me simply say, the bill before us doesn't change one sentence in the Clean Air Act. It does say that the endangerment finding was flawed, and the decision by the Obama administration to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is wrong, and it should not be allowed to stand. If this Congress or future Congresses want to regulate CO2, want to regulate greenhouse gases, let them bring a bill forward through the normal regulatory process and do it. Please vote for the rule. Please vote for the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my dear sweet sister-in-law, Carol Anne Beaver, went to be with her Lord on Saturday, March 26, 2011. She passed away in her home near Lockhart, Texas, following a long and valiant battle with cancer. She is the first of four daughters of James Brasher and Betty Hodges. She was born on December 19, 1955, in Pasadena, Texas. In addition to her parents, she is survived by her loving husband of 7 years, Jeff Beaver; three sons, Michael, Dustin, and Layton Warmack; Layton's wife, Holly; two granddaughters, Kelsie Anne Warmack and Maddy Ruiz; one grandson, Layton Warmack; three sisters, Vicki Perdue, Barbara Payne, and my wife, Terri Barton. She is also survived by numerous aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, her stepfather, Steven Hodges, two brothers-in-law, two stepdaughters, and of course her husband's family. She began her business career in Houston, Texas, as a bookkeeper for Brinadd Company, a multinational workover and completion fluids company that was owned by her late stepfather, James Jackson. While with Brinadd Company, she gained an early knowledge of computerized accounting systems when she worked closely with the programmer to convert a handwritten system into a computerized one. She moved to Lockhart, Texas, in Congressman Lloyd Doggett's district in Caldwell County, in 1988. She worked several years as a secretary and bookkeeper at a local law office. She subsequently returned to the accounting field, first working for Lifeway, then Columbia Health Care, and finally went to work for Austin's municipal transit system, Capital Metro System. She retired from Cap-Metro, when she came down with cancer, as the payroll manager for the entire system. Carol was a very loving, caring woman. She had a ready smile, a twinkle in her eye. She treasured her husband, her family and many, many friends. When I started dating her baby sister, Terri, she was, as she should be, very skeptical of whom she called Congressman Joe. She wasn't sure that her baby sister should be associated with anybody that was a Member of Congress. I would have to say, though, that when I invited Carol, her mother and two sisters and Terri to the local Dairy Queen in Lockhart, Texas, I was able to at least neutralize their opposition with some ice cream sundaes and some Barton-backer T-shirts. Carol and I became fast friends, and she came to respect not only me but this institution. She is going to be missed. She was the absolute most courageous, dedicated human being in fighting her long battle with cancer. She never complained. She never grumbled or whined about ``Why me, Lord?'' She took her battle with cancer in stride. She is now with her Lord in a better place. We will miss her very, very much, but we know that one day we will see her again. Her funeral will be tomorrow in Lockhart, Texas, at 1 o'clock. Visitation is this evening from 5 to 8 p.m. at the McCurdy Funeral Home in Lockhart, Texas. Sweet, sweet, Carol, we miss you very much.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Donna Painter for her dedication and contributions to nephrology nursing and kidney patients in Texas and across the country. Donna is one of my constituents from Corsicana, Texas and she served as President of the American Nephrology Nurses' Association (ANNA) in 2010 and 2011. Donna earned her Masters of Science in Health Care Administration from Texas Women's University in Dallas, Texas. She is a Registered Nurse and a Certified Nephrology Nurse. Donna has worked for Fresenius Medical Care in various positions since 1983. Over the course of her career, she has served as a staff nurse, a charge nurse, Home Training Coordinator, Director of Nursing, and Clinic Manager. She has also been Regional Quality Manager, and Director of Training and Organizational Development for Fresenius' West Business Unit. Currently, in addition to serving as President of ANNA, Donna is the Regional Vice President for Fresenius' East Texas Region. Donna has been an active member of ANNA for more than 20 years-- serving in a variety of leadership roles. As ANNA President, she has implemented a broad range of initiatives that will continue to improve care for patients whose lives depend on dialysis and other kidney replacement treatments. In particular, she has helped to ensure that ANNA will play a significant role in the nation-wide proliferation of quality improvements and policy in kidney care. ANNA is one of the largest and most prestigious nursing associations in America. The organization is the recognized leader in nephrology nursing practice, education, research, and advocacy. ANNA's members are registered nurses and health care professionals that care for patients of all ages who are experiencing, or are at risk for, kidney disease. Please join me in commending Donna Painter for her years of service to ANNA and the patients she cares for in Texas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Texas' Independence Day which occurred 175 years ago and to commemorate the occasion I would like to share with the House, the Texas Declaration of Independence signed on this day in the year 1836. The Unanimous Declaration of Independence made by the Delegates of the People of Texas in General Convention at the town of Washington on the 2nd day of March 1836 When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression. When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the everready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants. When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to force a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet. When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self- preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness. Nations, as well as individuals, are amenable for their acts to the public opinion of mankind. A statement of a part of our grievances is therefore submitted to an impartial world, in justification of the hazardous but unavoidable step now taken, of severing our political connection with the Mexican people, and assuming an independent attitude among the nations of the earth. The Mexican government, by its colonization laws, invited and induced the Anglo-American population of Texas to colonize its wilderness under the pledged faith of a written constitution, that they should continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America. In this expectation they have been cruelly disappointed, inasmuch as the Mexican nation has acquiesced in the late changes made in the government by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who having overturned the constitution of his country, now offers us the cruel alternative, either to abandon our homes, acquired by so many privations, or submit to the most intolerable of all tyranny, the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood. It has sacrificed our welfare to the state of Coahuila, by which our interests have been continually depressed through a jealous and partial course of legislation, carried on at a far distant seat of government, by a hostile majority, in an unknown tongue, and this too, notwithstanding we have petitioned in the humblest terms for the establishment of a separate state government, and have, in accordance with the provisions of the national constitution, presented to the general Congress a republican constitution, which was, without just cause, contemptuously rejected. It incarcerated in a dungeon, for a long time, one of our citizens, for no other cause but a zealous endeavor to procure the acceptance of our constitution, and the establishment of a state government. It has failed and refused to secure, on a firm basis, the right of trial by jury, that palladium of civil liberty, and only safe guarantee for the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. It has failed to establish any public system of education, although possessed of almost boundless resources, (the public domain,) and although it is an axiom in political science, that unless a people are educated and enlightened, it is idle to expect the continuance of civil liberty, or the capacity for self government. It has suffered the military commandants, stationed among us, to exercise arbitrary acts of oppression and tyrrany, thus trampling upon the most sacred rights of the citizens, and rendering the military superior to the civil power. It has dissolved, by force of arms, the state Congress of Coahuila and Texas, and obliged our representatives to fly for their lives from the seat of government, thus depriving us of the fundamental political right of representation. It has demanded the surrender of a number of our citizens, and ordered military detachments to seize and carry them into the Interior for trial, in contempt of the civil authorities, and in defiance of the laws and the constitution. It has made piratical attacks upon our commerce, by commissioning foreign desperadoes, and authorizing them to seize our vessels, and convey the property of our citizens to far distant ports for confiscation. It denies us the right of worshipping the Almighty according to the dictates of our own conscience, by the support of a national religion, calculated to promote the temporal interest of its human functionaries, rather than the glory of the true and living God. It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidable only to tyrannical governments. It has invaded our country both by sea and by land, with intent to lay waste our territory, and drive us from our homes; and has now a large mercenary army advancing, to carry on against us a war of extermination. It has, through its emissaries, incited the merciless savage, with the tomahawk and scalping knife, to massacre the inhabitants of our defenseless frontiers. It hath been, during the whole time of our connection with it, the contemptible sport and victim of successive military revolutions, and hath continually exhibited every characteristic of a weak, corrupt, and tyrranical government. These, and other grievances, were patiently borne by the people of Texas, until they reached that point at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. We then took up arms in defence of the national constitution. We appealed to our Mexican brethren for assistance. Our appeal has been made in vain. Though months have elapsed, no sympathetic response has yet been heard from the Interior. We are, therefore, forced to the melancholy conclusion, that the Mexican people have acquiesced in the destruction of their liberty, and the substitution therfor of a military government; that they are unfit to be free, and incapable of self government. The necessity of self-preservation, therefore, now decrees our eternal political separation. We, therefore, the delegates with plenary powers of the people of Texas, in solemn convention assembled, appealing to a candid world for the necessities of our condition, do hereby resolve and declare, that our political connection with the Mexican nation has forever ended, and that the people of Texas do now constitute a free, Sovereign, and independent republic, and are fully invested with all the rights and attributes which properly belong to independent nations; and, conscious of the rectitude of our intentions, we fearlessly and confidently commit the issue to the decision of the Supreme arbiter of the destinies of nations. Signed, Richard Ellis, President of the Convention and Delegate from Red River. Charles B. Stewart, Tho. Barnett, James Collinsworth, Edwin Waller, Asa Brigham, John S. D. Byrom, Francis Ruis, J. Antonio Navarro, Jesse B. Badgett, Wm D. Lacy, William Menifee, Jn. Fisher, Matthew Caldwell, William Motley, Lorenzo de Zavala, Stephen H. Everett, George W. Smyth, Elijah Stapp, Claiborne West, Wm. B. Scates, M. B. Menard, A. B. Hardin, J. W. Burton, Thos. J. Gazley, R. M. Coleman, Sterling C. Robertson, Geo. C. Childress, Bailey Hardeman, Rob. Potter, Thomas Jefferson Rusk, Chas. S. Taylor, John S. Roberts, Robert Hamilton, Collin McKinney, Albert H. Latimer, James Power, Sam Houston, David Thomas, Edwd. Conrad, Martin Parmer, Edwin O. Legrand, Stephen W. Blount, Jms. Gaines, Wm. Clark, Jr., Sydney O. Pennington, Wm. Carrol Crawford, Jno. Turner, Benj. Briggs Goodrich, G. W. Barnett, James G. Swisher, Jesse Grimes, S. Rhoads Fisher, John W. Moore, John W. Bower, Saml. A. Maverick (from Bejar), Sam P. Carson, A. Briscoe, J. B. Woods, H. S. Kimble, Secretary.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put in the Record a letter dated November 23, 2010, on this issue that I sent to the chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Honorable Inez Tenenbaum. I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Kansas' amendment. He is exactly right on this, and we should support him. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, November 23, 2010. Hon. Inez Tenenbaum, Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda,

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to my good friend, Mr. Heller's, amendment. U.S. taxpayers and electric ratepayers have spent billions of dollars on this project. It is my assumption and my opinion that the Obama administration has acted without authority to close it down. They've certainly acted outside the confines of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. I support the opposition of my good friend from New Jersey and would urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise in strong support of the Jordan amendment. I am obviously not a freshman. I have been in the Congress for 26 years. I am very supportive of what Chairman Rogers and all the appropriators have done. I think it's an interesting point to have the ranking minority member yielding to the chairman of the committee, but that's Congress at its finest. But I would point out that our budget deficit this year is $1.6 trillion. I would point out that the Obama budget, the smallest deficit it reports over a 10-year period, is about $750 billion. The Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Mr. Jordan, is the point of the spear that is lancing the out-of-control, reckless Federal spending that is bankrupting this country. This amendment complements what Chairman Rogers has done. We need to support it, to put them in the best position when we have the negotiations with our friends in the other body. Please vote for this necessary amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. There is no question that if you regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act you are going to destroy millions of jobs, which will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, without any real economic analysis to show that it is a harm. So I support the Poe-Carter-Barton amendment, and I hope that the whole House will.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So much to say, so little time. Mr. Chairman, first, let me point out that CO2, the greenhouse gas that is most under discussion, is not a pollutant under the classical definition of the Clean Air Act. I am creating CO2 as I speak. The gentleman from Washington, who was just speaking, as he spoke, was creating CO2. If you have a carbonated beverage, the reason it bubbles and it is called ``carbonated'' is because of CO2. Greenhouse gases are necessary to human life. They're what keep the planet warm. They're what trap heat so we have an atmosphere that we can exist in. There is not a definition of a health exposure to CO2. The theory that CO2 is harmful is based on a theory that the amount of greenhouse gases, specifically CO2, in the upper atmosphere, as it increases, so many parts per billion somehow affect the ability of the Earth to accumulate or dispense heat. It is a theory. There is nobody in this country or anywhere in the world who has been harmed because of manmade CO2. You cannot point to cases of CO2 poisoning. So, when my friends who oppose this amendment talk about carbon pollution, they're using a definition that is very loose and very nebulous. The second point is that there is no question that the Clean Air Act, as passed and as amended in 1990, did not include CO2 as a criterion pollutant. Because of a case, Massachusetts vs. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled--and my friend from Washington was correct--5-4 that the EPA could make a decision to regulate CO2. Could-- not should, not must--but could. The Bush administration began a process to analyze that decision. The Obama administration came in, and within the first 90 days, issued an endangerment finding, not based on independent analysis, but based more on press releases as far as I can say. They said, yes, by golly, that CO2 was a pollutant and that, yes, they could regulate it. They have since been trying to shoehorn CO2 regulation into the tenets of the original Clean Air Act. The amendment before us this evening that Mr. Poe, Mr. Carter, and I have promulgated simply says: Let's take a timeout on CO2 regulation for the next 7 months. Let's actually define what the greenhouse gases are that we want to look at, and let's restrict the analysis to stationary sources on the regulations that are implemented after January 2011.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend for 30 seconds the remaining time on both sides.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield back my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to very quickly rise in strong support of Congressman Carter's amendment. I have three cement plants in my district in Midlothian, Texas. It is the cement capital of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Republicans are not for no regulation of mercury. We think this particular mercury rule is flawed. My good friend, the former chairman Mr. Waxman of California, talked about the rigorous analysis that was done. His definition of ``rigorous'' and my definition of ``rigorous'' are not one and the same. We think that analysis was fairly flawed. I would point out that most pollutants--and we do agree that mercury is a pollutant--are measured in tons. Mercury emissions from these plants are measured in pounds per year, so mercury is a trace element of these pollutants. We think that we should go back and actually do a real economic analysis and also a health analysis. My good friend from Massachusetts was talking about the dangers of health. Those are real dangers. But again, given that the trace amounts of mercury that are emitted per year are in pounds, it is a very tenuous connection to say that the mercury from a cement plant has a direct correlation with some of the potential side effects that the gentleman from Massachusetts was talking about. So I think this is a good amendment, and I want to support it. I now yield to my good friend Mr. Akin. I believe he has an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, you might check it out because some of the benefits and some of the costs you talk about are not borne out in the real world when you do a real analysis.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my friend Congressman Serrano. Would Mr. Waxman agree with me that, if you get one of these new squiggly mercury bulbs and break it, you're going to be exposed to more mercury than the amount of mercury you're exposed to from a cement plant?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I think that's a factually correct statement.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parents across this country have taken a stand, and they are demanding more academic choices for their children. In that spirit, I would like to highlight that this week, January 23-29, marks the inaugural ``National School Choice Week,'' an event that promotes giving parents a choice on education. The mission of National School Choice Week is simple: we need a K-12 education system that provides a wide array of options. We need an effective education system that has the flexibility to personalize and motivate students and allow parents to choose the school that is best for their child. To provide a system of learning that meets the needs of tomorrow's students, we need to empower the parents, teachers and school systems today. I am honored to take this opportunity to champion this cause and the individual freedom to choose. I believe that promoting educational choice for parents and students is a vital part of the educational process. Our students deserve the best teachers, facilities, and studying environments. I am proud to say that I am ``all in'' for National School Choice Week.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thank you, Congressman Carter. And I want to thank you and Congressman Gohmert and some of the other Texans who may have been here before I got here. I have been at a Young Guns dinner, which is why I'm late. But I did not want to fail to take advantage of this opportunity. I want to thank you for hosting this Special Order. I want to kind of set the predicate here in terms of those kind words that Judge Carter just said about me. I have been in the Congress 26 years. I have been on the Energy and Commerce Committee 24 years. I have been a congressional observer or delegate at large to all the major global warming climate change conferences, or COPS, council of parties. I was at Kyoto when Vice President Gore came over and made his famous speech, and then on behalf of President Clinton agreed to sign the Kyoto Accord, which the U.S. Senate never took up. Most recently, I was a part of the congressional delegation that then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi took to Copenhagen last year, where President Obama came and pleaded that there be a conference agreement, which then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed to fund with dollars that the U.S. Government didn't have. So I was at Buenos Aires. I mean I have been to all the major conferences as a congressional observer or delegate. I chaired dozens of hearings on global warming, authored bills, was an original cosponsor and passed the--I helped to vote for and support the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. So I have been involved in this issue for a number of years. Let me say this: CO2 is not a pollutant under the criteria as put forward by the Clean Air Act. It's not one of the named criteria pollutants like SO2 or ozone. It is necessary for life as we know it. The term ``greenhouse gas,'' if you just think what a greenhouse is, self-enclosed, in this case the world, and the greenhouse gases are what create the atmosphere and help trap the heat so that life can exist. CO2 is a trace gas, it's about \1/10\ of 1 percent of the atmosphere. Man-made CO2, called anthropogenic CO2 is, I don't know the exact percentage of the total, but it is less than 50 percent. So what has happened in the last 10 to 15 years is this theory of global warming and climate change needed a bogeyman, and they chose CO2. They have developed these models that show as CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere over time the temperature rises. It is a fact that CO2 is rising, but it is not necessarily a fact that that rise is causing temperature to rise. In fact, there is quite a bit of data that would indicate that CO2 rises as a consequence of temperature rising, so it is a follower, not a leader in that. So in any event, this administration, the Obama administration, when they came into office in January of 2009, began a process, or accelerated a process, to determine that CO2 was a danger to the atmosphere or a danger to the health of the U.S. population. And they, within 90 days, issued an endangerment finding where they said that since CO2 was a danger to public health, they had the right to regulate CO2, and they began to promulgate these proposed regulations. What does that have to do with the Special Order this evening? The Environmental Protection Agency has made a decision--and I think a political decision--to be punitive towards Texas and has gone down, and I am sure Judge Carter and Judge Gohmert have pointed out that they have revoked over 100 existing air-quality permits, some of which have been on the books since the 1990s, for sites and facilities in Texas. Those permits are for more than CO2. They actually are required by the Clean Air Act to regulate SO2 and NOX and ozone, things of this sort. They revoked all of those. The EPA has also issued, I don't know the right word, Judge, threats, warnings to the State of Texas that Texas must begin to implement some of these proposed regulations on CO2. In both cases, I think the EPA is acting without the law being on their side; and in the case of the CO2 regulations, I am very confident they are acting without the science on their side. So what those of us who represent Texas here in the Congress, in conjunction with our Governor, Lieutenant Governor, the Texas House, the Texas Senate and the Attorney General of Texas, are saying is before we go any further, let's see what the real facts are. Let's see, has Texas, as a regulatory entity, through the Texas Council of Environmental Quality, TCEQ, failed in its obligation under the Clean Air Act to, to implement the terms of that act? I think the answer is Texas has not failed. I think the answer is, if you look at the record, air quality and the criteria pollutants that are specifically regulated by the Clean Air Act is improving in Texas. We have two or three or four, I guess we have, the DFW is a non- attainment area. El Paso is a non-attainment area. Houston-Harris County is a non-attainment area and Beaumont-Port Arthur, I believe, are still listed as a not. So we have four areas that have been non- attainment under the specific criteria of the Clean Air Act. In all four of those, the State of Texas has submitted what are called state implementation plans, SIPs, and those have been accepted, I think with one exception by the EPA, both regionally and nationally. Under those SIPs, air quality is improving. And if the EPA were not to keep changing the standard, we would be in attainment in all four regions. But each time we have gotten close, in the DFW area, for example, to be in attainment, they have tightened or changed the standard and said that we were in noncompliance. So what we are doing this evening under Judge Carter and Judge Gohmert's leadership is saying let's begin to have a debate about what the facts are. The first fact that everybody watching this and listening on the floor needs to know is air quality in Texas is improving. The TCEQ, Texas legislature, has done an outstanding job of implementing the terms and conditions which we have passed here in Washington. Number two, the State of Texas, working with industry, has adopted a flexible permitting program where we work with industry and say here is the standard you need to meet. Here are the various ways you can meet it; let's work together. And that's worked very well. Compliance costs in Texas are below the national average. Industry sees that. Industry is coming to Texas. People are moving to Texas for its quality of life. I am sure you all pointed out that Texas has led the Nation in job creation. Texas has led the Nation as one of the leading States in terms of population increase. Now, you cannot be doing all those good things and then be derelict in air quality if, in fact, air quality is improving and water quality is improving. So we want a dialogue on what the facts are, both on the criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act and on CO2, which is a greenhouse gas. And I would hope, Congressman, that we do more of these Special Orders, that we even do some of these in Texas. I can assure you on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I am a senior member, I have encouraged our current chairman, Mr. Upton, and our current subcommittee chairmen, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Stearns and Mr. Shimkus, to hold hearings, bring witnesses on both sides from Texas, bring our friends at the EPA, both up here and in Dallas, come down, come up, and let's put the facts on the table and then let's see what laws, if any, need to be changed. I am already a cosponsor of a bill that would make it explicit that CO2 is not a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act and should not be. I am not saying that at some point in time we may not need to issue a standard on CO2, if it's proven that it is a harm to public health. But until that time, it should not be regulated under the Clean Air Act. It was never intended to be, and we think the EPA is wrong to keep insisting that it should be. Again, I want to thank you, Judge, and thank you, Judge. I am glad to be here and participate.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to keep reiterating, air quality in Texas is improving. It is improving. The Clean Air Act gives the Federal Government, through the Environmental Protection Agency, the right to preempt States when the States either don't implement the Federal regulations on the Clean Air Act, or if the States simply turn it back and ask the Federal Government to take over. So the EPA does have the right under certain circumstances to preempt State implementation. But in this case, I would postulate, and each of you are former judges before you became Congressmen, that since the State of Texas has complied and air quality is improving and there is a debate about whether CO2 should be regulated under the Clean Air Act, which is a separate issue, that the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds to come in and unilaterally, against the wishes of the State of Texas, repeal these permits and require that they all be resubmitted and not only resubmitted, but resubmitted in a very specific way. The State of Texas air quality permitting program has been flexible, says we will regulate an entire site and as long as you are under that cap, you can implement new equipment and new procedures as long as your emissions stay the same or go down. And under the Texas flexible permitting program, they have gone done, in some cases as much as 20-30 percent. This is in a State where population has gone up, where productivity has gone up, and output has gone up. So in my view the State of Texas and the Texas Council on Environmental Quality should be getting awards from the Federal Government, not being punished and not being unilaterally dismissed. I really respect and thank you, Congressman Carter, for holding this Special Order. I will tell our friends in Texas that may be watching that this Special Order is not the end; it is simply the beginning.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. About two-thirds.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentleman is correct. Name the State that has the largest net out-migration from its State to Texas?