Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Those of us who support this initiative support it because we believe you can have improving air quality and improving water quality and increase jobs and economic output. It is not an either/or. It can be a win/win. But if we adopt the EPA's shortsighted, mandatory, very specific command-and-control attitude, you are, as Congressman Gohmert said, you are going to destroy jobs, destroy the economy, reduce output, and not get very much increased environmental quality.

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. If the gentleman would yield, common sense, we are beginning the redistributing process now, and the State of Texas is going to gain four additional congressional seats which means our population between 2000 and 2010 has increased approximately 3 million people. My question to you: Would people be coming to Texas if the quality of life was decreasing, if the environmental quality was decreasing, or would they be coming to Texas because it is a better place to live and it has economic opportunity?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him as the chairman of the committee. Mr. Speaker, before I begin to discuss health care, I would like to say that our prayers continue to go out to Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona. We are very gratified to learn of her continuing progress. We hope that some time in this Congress she does come back to the House floor and give her voice to the voice for her constituency. We all miss her and we wish her the very best. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the existing law of the land on health care is fatally flawed. Most of us think it is unconstitutional. We think it is overreaching. We think the Federal Government is intervening more and more into the daily practice of health care between the doctor-patient relationship. And we think it needs to be repealed before it does irreparable harm to our health care system, which is the best in the world. We think that on basic principles it's unconstitutional. We believe that you shouldn't have the Federal Government mandate that an individual has to have health insurance, whether he or she wants it. That particular constitutional question is wending its way through the courts and we hope soon to have an answer to that question. We want to repeal today so that we can begin to replace tomorrow. We want to deliver on our Pledge to America that we meant it when we said if the American voters gave us the majority, we would repeal this existing law, and that is step one. But step two is to replace it. I see that my good friend from California, Congresswoman Eshoo, is on the floor. She and I have an amendment in the new law on biosimilars that passed with a huge bipartisan majority, and we hope that that's one of the things that will be kept. We do believe that we should be able to do something on preexisting conditions. We do believe that children should be allowed to stay on their parents' plans until the age of 26. So there are some things in the new law that we think are worth keeping. But until you sweep away the bad things, we cannot begin to work on the good things. So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we hope that we can repeal it on a bipartisan basis in the House and, under the leadership of Mr. Upton and Mr. Camp and others, begin to replace it tomorrow. Please vote to repeal this law today.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I, along with Representatives Burgess, Granger and Marchant, wish to inform the House that on December 30, 2010, the great State of Texas lost a lion. Tom Vandergriff, former mayor of Arlington, Texas, former County Judge of Tarrant County, and former Member of the United States Congress, left this life at the age of 84. All of us in north Texas will mark time from the moment we heard of the loss. The loss is monumental. Few people have had such a positive impact on the development and quality of life of north Texas, and no one has had a greater impact on Arlington. His friends and admirers are legion, his accomplishments legendary. He was the personification of an ideal, the ideal of a selflessly devoted public servant who always put the people ahead of personal gain or ambition. Arlington history is generally divided into two epochs: BV and AV, Before Vandergriff and After Vandergriff. He first sought and won elective office in 1951 when he became the ``boy mayor'' of Arlington at the age of 25. At the time Arlington was a small town on the railroad midway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Vandergriff saw the town's potential and set out to make it a center of prosperity in its own right while fostering a new spirit of cooperation within the north Texas region. Arlington, now the 49th largest city in the U.S. with 370,000 people, would never be the same, and neither would north Texas. Indeed, it was Vandergriff who coined the phrase, ``Metroplex,'' which is still the term usually applied to describe the Dallas-Fort Worth area. His first major achievement was convincing General Motors executives to locate their new automobile assembly plant in Arlington. His family owned a Chevrolet dealership in town, which gave him access to General Motors Corp. Upon hearing that GM planned to build a plant in north Texas, he sold Arlington as a superior location by telling GM, as he would later tell the story, that if they put the plant in Dallas, it would make Fort Worth angry; if they put it in Fort Worth, it would make Dallas angry. He ended his pitch by convincing them that if they put it in Arlington, everybody would be happy. The plant produced its first automobile in 1954 and today is the only GM plant in the U.S. that makes full-size SUVs. The GM plant began a building boom in Arlington that has lasted more than 55 years. Knowing a small town on well water could not sustain rapid growth nor accommodate the needs of industry, Vandergriff convinced the voters of Arlington to pass an initiative to build a large reservoir to meet the town's future needs. The effort proved to be as controversial as it was monumental for a small town, but the initiative passed, and Lake Arlington was built. The project was ridiculed by many in Arlington and dismissed by others in the region as ``Vandergriff's Folly,'' but the folly became ``the miracle lake'' upon its completion. Large equipment was being removed from the site in 1957 when one of the worst and longest droughts in Texas history broke, and it began to rain. The lake, which experts believed would take years to fill, was full in 18 days. The lake ensured the explosive growth that came in the decades of the '60s, '70s, and '80s that made Arlington, Texas one of the fastest growing cities in America. As a college student at the University of Southern California, Vandergriff was very familiar with Anaheim and by the late 1950s was aware of the tremendous economic impact tourism had on the city after the opening of Disneyland theme park in 1955. He knew, because of Arlington's central location, that the same benefits could accrue to his city with a product of similar appeal. It came as no surprise to those familiar with the Vandergriff vision for Arlington when he became instrumental in establishing the Six Flags Over Texas theme park in 1961. The park was an instant hit, and people all over the southwestern United States began traveling to Arlington for family style entertainment. The first of the Six Flags parks, it still operates at its original location in Arlington. But Vandergriff didn't stop there. A devoted baseball fan, he was determined to bring professional baseball to north Texas. The effort took years and saw hopes dashed time and again before he finally convinced owner Bob Short to move his Washington Senators to Arlington in 1972. The effort did not endear him to the people of the nation's capital. On one of his many visits to meet with Short, he was unceremoniously kicked out of a taxicab when he made the mistake of telling the cabbie why he was in town. The Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers Ball Club, and Tom Vandergriff became the team's biggest fan and supporter. When his beloved Rangers won their first American League Pennant by beating the New York Yankees in Arlington last October, Vandergriff was there in the ballpark he helped build to cheer them on. Today, Arlington is host to more than seven million visitors each year and is the second most popular tourist destination in the state, bringing millions of dollars in revenue to the city annually. The city's entertainment district boasts Six Flags theme park, the Texas Rangers Ballpark, a new Dallas Cowboys football stadium, the National Bowling Congress and Museum, Hurricane Harbor water park, and clusters of shops and restaurants that make Arlington the City of Wow for millions of Texans. In his 26 years as mayor, two years as a member of Congress, and 16 years as County Judge of Tarrant County, Vandergriff championed two more causes relentlessly: regional communication and cooperation and helping the University of Texas at Arlington become a major institution of higher learning. Believing that everyone in north Texas would succeed if they worked together for the good of the region, Vandergriff spent decades finessing, cajoling, and winning over the leaders of other cities in the region. He led the effort to establish and became the president of the north Central Texas Council of Governments which today is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for all of north Texas. He was a strong advocate for regionalism well into his eighties, and the economic might of the region is a testament to that effort. Vandergriff's efforts on behalf of his hometown university are equally impressive. When he became mayor, Arlington College was a tiny two-year institution affiliated with Texas A&M that was formerly a military school and then an agricultural college. Vandergriff knew it could be more, and if Arlington were to succeed as a city, so must its college. He led the effort to make the college a four-year university. Working with then-governor John Connally, he succeeded when the college became a full university within the University of Texas system in 1964. Today, the University of Texas at Arlington is the largest UT campus outside of Austin and the fastest growing university in the state. It is quickly becoming a major research facility and contributes more to the local economy than any industry in the city. There is more, of course, much more. In a life lived as fully and as well as his, there is always more to tell: his unwavering support and leadership of Arlington Memorial Hospital, his support and leadership of the Arlington Chamber of Commerce, his support of local public schools, his support of a long list of non-profit agencies, his decades as an active member of the United Methodist church, and his roles as husband, father, grandfather, and mentor to a very long list of aspiring leaders. All of this almost didn't happen, at least not in Texas. Vandergriff was born on January 29, 1926, to W. T. and Charles Vandergriff in Carrolton, Texas. The family relocated to Arlington when Tom was 12. After graduating from Arlington High School, Vandergriff attended USC where he earned a bachelor's degree in 1947. He married his high school sweetheart, Anna Waynette Smith in 1949. Blessed with a deep, sonorous voice that he used with perfect diction, he prepared for a career in radio and broadcast journalism. After graduation he applied for and was a finalist in the competition for what he thought would be the job of his dreams, but he lost out to another young applicant. Vandergriff returned to Texas to join his father's automobile dealership, disappointed and convinced that he was a better candidate for the broadcast job. The young man who got the job was Chet Huntley. Chet Huntley would gain fame as an NBC news anchor and reach millions of listeners nationwide, but the loser in that early competition, Tom Vandergriff, would touch millions in north Texas in ways that were deeper and arguably more significant. Many have their own stories to tell about Vandergriff, many humorous because he possessed a wonderful sense of humor, many thankful because he touched so many with acts of kindness large and small, and many inspirational because he inspired us, goaded us, and led us to be greater than we thought we were and achieved things we never thought possible. All in north Texas are better off today because Tom Vandergriff was here, and our children and grandchildren will have better lives even though they will never know him. Those of us who did will never forget him. Well done, good and faithful servant.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Judge Tom Vandergriff was a Member of the House of Representatives from January 1982 until December 1984. He was defeated for reelection in November of 1984 by Dick Armey, moved back to Texas, and switched parties from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. In 1990 he was elected county judge in which he served from 1990 until 2007. He passed away on December 30, 2010. His memorial service is tomorrow afternoon at the University of Texas at Arlington's Texas Center from 1 till 3. Judge Vandergriff was a personal friend of mine. When I first was given part of Arlington in the redistricting process in 1992, he agreed to be my cochairman for my campaign. He was just an absolute gentleman and helped in every way possible. One of the most unique things about Judge Vandergriff is that in his entire political career, which spanned from 1951 until 2007, he never held a political fund-raising event for himself. He did actually accept political contributions obviously but he never solicited and he never held an organized political event that he himself organized on his behalf. I thought that was astounding in the modern political era to be as successful politically as he was without having to go out and do the numerous fund-raisers that most of us have to do. We are going to miss Judge Vandergriff. He's got a list of accomplishments a mile long. He was mayor of Arlington from 1951 until 1967. During his tenure as mayor, he was able to get the General Motors assembly plant located in Arlington; he helped get the Texas Rangers, which were then the Washington Senators, to move to Arlington, and was able to attend the World Series this past October in which he saw the Texas Rangers first of all win the American League and then fight valiantly against the San Francisco Giants who ultimately won the World Series. He wanted to be a broadcaster. He went to USC in Los Angeles, applied for a broadcasting job in 1947, and was not successful in getting that broadcasting job. It went to somebody named Chet Huntley, who later became an anchorman on NBC News. Judge Vandergriff returned to Texas to assume a role in his family's Chevrolet dealership with his father, which he maintained that dealership except for times when he was a U.S. Congressman in some capacity. We're going to miss Judge Vandergriff. We give our condolences to his family. Again, he was a Member of Congress from 1982 until 1984 and he will be missed. On December 30, 2010, Texas lost a lion. Tom Vandergriff, former mayor of Arlington, Texas, former County Judge of Tarrant County, and former Member of the United States Congress, left this life at the age of 84. All of us in North Texas will mark time from the moment we heard of the loss. The loss is monumental. Few people have had such a positive impact on the development and quality of life of North Texas, and no one has had a greater impact on Arlington. His friends and admirers are legion, his accomplishments legendary. He was the personification of an ideal, the ideal of a selflessly devoted public servant who always put the people ahead of personal gain or ambition. Arlington history is generally divided into two epochs: BV and AV, Before Vandergriff and After Vandergriff. He first sought and won elective office in 1951 when he became the ``boy mayor'' of Arlington at the age of 25. At the time Arlington was a small town on the railroad midway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Vandergriff saw the town's potential and set out to make it a center of prosperity in its own right while fostering a new spirit of cooperation within the North Texas region. Arlington, now the 49th largest city in the U.S. with 370,000 people, would never be the same, and neither would North Texas. Indeed, it was Vandergriff who coined the phrase, ``Metroplex'', which is still the term usually applied to describe the Dallas-Fort Worth area. His first major achievement was convincing General Motors executives to locate their new automobile assembly plant in Arlington. His family owned a Chevrolet dealership in town, which gave him access to General Motors Corp. Upon hearing that GM planned to build a plant in North Texas, he sold Arlington as a superior location by telling GM, as he would later tell the story, that if they put the plant in Dallas, it would make Fort Worth angry; if they put it in Fort Worth, it would make Dallas angry. He ended his pitch by convincing them that if they put it in Arlington, everybody would be happy. The plant produced its first automobile in 1954 and today is the only GM plant in the U.S. that makes full-size SUVs. The GM plant began a building boom in Arlington that has lasted more than 55 years. Knowing a small town on well water could not sustain rapid growth nor accommodate the needs of industry, Vandergriff convinced the voters of Arlington to pass an initiative to build a large reservoir to meet the town's future needs. The effort proved to be as controversial as it was monumental for a small town, but the initiative passed, and Lake Arlington was built. The project was ridiculed by many in Arlington and dismissed by others in the region as ``Vandergriff's Folly'', but the folly became ``the miracle lake'' upon its completion. Large equipment was being removed from the site in 1957 when one of the worst and longest droughts in Texas history broke, and it began to rain. The lake, which experts believed would take years to fill, was full in 18 days. The lake ensured the explosive growth that came in the decades of the '60s, 70s, and 80s that made Arlington, Texas one of the fastest growing cities in America. As a college student at the University of Southern California, Vandergriff was very familiar with Anaheim and by the late 1950s was aware of the tremendous economic impact tourism had on the city after the opening of Disneyland theme park in 1955. He knew, because of Arlington's central location, that the same benefits could accrue to his city with a product of similar appeal. It came as no surprise to those familiar with the Vandergriff vision for Arlington when he became instrumental in establishing the Six Flags Over Texas theme park in 1961. The park was an instant hit, and people all over the southwestern United States began traveling to Arlington for family styled entertainment. The first of the Six Flags parks, it still operates at its original location in Arlington. But Vandergriff didn't stop there. A devoted baseball fan, he was determined to bring professional baseball to North Texas. The effort took years and saw hopes dashed time and again before he finally convinced owner Bob Short to move his Washington Senators to Arlington in 1972. The effort did not endear him to the people of the Nation's capital. On one of his many visits to meet with Short, he was unceremoniously kicked out of a taxicab when he made the mistake of telling the cabbie why he was in town. The Washington Senators became the Texas Rangers Ball Club, and Tom Vandergriff became the team's biggest fan and supporter. When his beloved Rangers won their first American League Pennant by beating the New York Yankees in Arlington last October, Vandergriff was there in the ballpark he helped build to cheer them on. Today, Arlington is host to more than seven million visitors each year and is the second most popular tourist destination in the state, bringing millions of dollars in revenue to the city annually. The city's entertainment district boasts Six Flags theme park, the Texas Rangers Ballpark, a new Dallas Cowboys football stadium, the National Bowling Congress and Museum, Hurricane Harbor water park, and clusters of shops and restaurants that make Arlington the City of Wow for millions of Texans. In his 26 years as mayor, two years as a member of Congress, and 16 years as County Judge of Tarrant County, Vandergriff championed two more causes relentlessly: regional communication and cooperation and helping the University of Texas at Arlington become a major institution of higher learning. Believing that everyone in North Texas would succeed if they worked together for the good of the region, Vandergriff spent decades finessing, cajoling, and winning over the leaders of other cities in the region. He led the effort to establish and became the president of the North Central Texas Council of Governments which today is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for all of North Texas. He was a strong advocate for regionalism well into his eighties, and the economic might of the region is a testament to that effort. Vandergriff's efforts on behalf of his hometown university are equally impressive. When he became mayor, Arlington College was a tiny two-year institution affiliated with Texas A&M that was formerly a military school and then an agricultural college. Vandergriff knew it could be more, and if Arlington were to succeed as a city, so must its college. He led the effort to make the college a four-year university. Working with then-governor John Connally, he succeeded when the college became a full university within the University of Texas system in 1964. Today, the University of Texas at Arlington is the largest UT campus outside of Austin and the fastest growing university in the state. It is quickly becoming a major research facility and contributes more to the local economy than any industry in the city. There is more, of course, much more. In a life lived as fully and as well as his, there is always more to tell: his unwavering support and leadership of Arlington Memorial Hospital, his support and leadership of the Arlington Chamber of Commerce, his support of local public schools, his support of a long list of non-profit agencies, his decades as an active member of the United Methodist Church, and his roles as husband, father, grandfather, and mentor to a very long list of aspiring leaders. All of this almost didn't happen, at least not in Texas. Vandergriff was born on January 29, 1926, to W. T. and Charles Vandergriff in Carrolton, Texas. The family relocated to Arlington when Tom was 12. After graduating from Arlington High School Vandergriff attended USC where he earned a bachelor's degree in 1947. He married his high school sweetheart, Anna Waynette Smith in 1949. Blessed with a deep, sonorous voice that he used with perfect diction, he prepared for a career in radio and broadcast journalism. After graduation he applied for and was a finalist in the competition for what he thought would be the job of his dreams, but he lost out to another young applicant. Vandergriff returned to Texas to join his father's automobile dealership, disappointed and convinced that he was a better candidate for the broadcast job. The young man who got the job was Chet Huntley. Chet Huntley would gain fame as an NBC news anchor and reach millions of listeners nationwide, but the loser in that early competition, Tom Vandergriff, would touch millions in North Texas in ways that were deeper and arguably more significant. Many have their own stories to tell about Vandergriff, many humorous because he possessed a wonderful sense of humor, many thankful because he touched so many with acts of kindness large and small, and many inspirational because he inspired us, goaded us, and led us to be greater than we thought we were and achieved things we never thought possible. All in North Texas are better off today because Tom Vandergriff was here, and our children and grandchildren will have better lives even though they will never know him. Those of us who did will never forget him. Well done, good and faithful servant. I now yield to Congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas who wishes to speak also on behalf of Judge Vandergriff.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Denton, Congressman Burgess.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know we have a new protocol for recognizing former Members who have passed away. Is it appropriate under our rules to have a moment of silence for Judge Vandergriff? And if so, how would I request such a moment of silence?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So it would not be appropriate at this time?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, my Chief of Staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee, David L. Cavicke, will be leaving the Committee in January after nearly 16 years of service on the Committee. Staff work quietly out of the spotlight, and I want to take this occasion to commend David for the many issues on which he provided counsel to the Members of the Committee and for his leadership of the Committee staff as Chief of Staff. David joined the Committee staff in 1995, early in the tenure of Chairman Tom Bliley and Speaker Newt Gingrich. He came to Washington in his '84 Chevy Caprice with six suits and a 486 computer, knowing no one and hoping to contribute to the public policy changes following the historic 1994 election. Tom Bliley hired David as the Committee finance counsel based on a keen intellect, a creative gift for policy ideas that manifested itself in some of the most important changes made to financial regulation in the 1990s, a sense of due process and willingness to listen to all sides of an issue, as well as a very good sense of humor. David helped Tom Bliley and Newt Gingrich develop and pass milestone legislation that included the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the only public law to be enacted over President Clinton's veto. He worked with Jack Fields and Ed Markey to pass The National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996, which preempted state regulatory authority over national securities offerings; required consideration of efficiency, competition and capital formation in addition to investor protection as elements of SEC rulemakings; and also included the Bliley SEC Fee reduction agreement, which saved one billion dollars worth of fees over 10 years. David was also the lead staffer on the Committee's efforts to pass the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that removed the Depression era's barriers between banking, investment and insurance. He worked closely with Republican Committee members and Democratic Committee members like John Dingell and Ed Markey to see that investors' interests would be protected and that the sovereign credit of the United States would not be extended to guarantee underwriting activities by banks. Had the Congress accepted the Committee's work product rather than watering down these protections in Conference, we might have avoided some of the financial problems we experienced at the end of 2008. Other products of his work for the Committee were the Securities Litigation Reform Uniform Standards legislation, which first asserted federal jurisdiction over class action lawsuits in securities matters, as well as E-SIGN, which made digital signatures enforceable in electronic commerce, facilitating legal certainty for internet commerce. In Billy Tauzin's chairmanship, David worked on investigations into financial fraud at Enron and Arthur Andersen. His expertise in financial markets and training as a Wall Street lawyer proved vital to the work we did to expose wrongdoing at those firms. This expertise made him the natural choice to depose the key executives at those firms. He subsequently worked on accounting standards, anti-spam legislation, anti-spyware initiatives and legislation to protect consumers' personal data, as well as leading staff investigations into accounting fraud at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When I became Chairman, I promoted David twice, first to be Committee General Counsel where he was a tireless advocate for the Committee's jurisdiction on behalf of Members of both parties. David made the arguments that finally caused the parliamentarians to recognize the Committee on Energy and Commerce's exclusive jurisdiction over telecommunications issues as a result of the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I then promoted David to be Committee Chief of Staff in 2007. He was the first person on the Republican side to have been promoted to Chief of Staff directly from the staff since the beginning of the Gingrich era. In his role as chief staff strategist for the loyal opposition on the Committee to the Obama Administration, David's command of details and marshalling of resources made possible a legendary 17-day stand by a handful of Republican Members (me, Nathan Deal, John Shadegg and the rest of the gang of 23) against passage of the wide-ranging health reform law. Similarly, his careful planning helped the emboldened Republican minority resist the Administration's global warming bill until it was shelved. He has been a vigorous advocate for transparency--be it in government, or health care pricing. Since becoming Chief of Staff, David has become the second best Texas Hold 'em player on the Committee. He beat Howard Lederer, a world champion poker player, in heads up play in a charity tournament this year. As Chief of Staff, he always defended the prerogatives of the Committee and its Members, for which we are very grateful. My colleagues and I on the Committee will certainly miss his good counsel, his great admiration for the institutional importance of the Committee, and his good cheer.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman-to-be of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California, my good friend. Mr. Speaker, this is not a bad compromise that's before us, but it is also not the best compromise. It's not a bad deal, but it's not the best deal. The gentleman from California who spoke on the Democratic side just a few minutes ago I think said it best when he said, In January, our Republican friends will be at the table. We are making a compromise today on the Republican side, in my opinion, that we don't have to make. I think the tax cuts should be permanent, not temporary. I think the additional spending should be paid for now, not just added to the deficit. A funny thing happened in November: We elected over 80 new Republicans. The majority is going from about 255 Democrats to 242 Republicans. You cannot tell me that the week before Christmas that Americans in the business community are deciding what their capital investments are going to be for 2011. Those decisions have already been made. So I am going to vote against the rule and, with reluctance, vote against the bill, not because it's a bad compromise but because we can do better. And I fully expect in January, when the Republicans become the majority party in the House, that we will do better. So again, this is not the worst bill that has ever been before us, but it could be better and it should be better, and so I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thank you. Madam Speaker, I apologize. I was in my office and listening to the debate. I heard my distinguished senior Republican rise in reluctant opposition to the bill. I had had a conversation which Mr. Terry was not aware of with the chairman of the committee, Mr. Waxman, in which I expressed the same concerns that Mr. Terry expressed, but because of the policy implications of the bill, agreed that it should be supported. I told him that I would encourage the Republicans on the committee and in the full House to support it. Mr. Terry did not know that, and he was doing what we had decided before I talked to Mr. Waxman. I would not normally rush to the floor; but given that I had given my word to Chairman Waxman, I felt the necessity to express to the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Boucher, that while we agree with all the process arguments that Mr. Terry enunciated and think they are very valid, the policy in the bill is good policy, and I would ask that it be supported for that reason. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise for two reasons. One is to support this bill. I actually thought it had passed and become law because we pass it every Congress, and it goes to the other body and falls in the black hole over there. So it is good to know they are bringing it back. I am told there is a two-word difference between the bill we sent to them and the bill they sent back to us. I guess we can accept a two- word difference. It is long overdue. I want to compliment Mr. Engel for his hard work and perseverance. And Mr. Stearns, Mr. Murphy, and others on our side, and of course Mr. Boucher for this bill. The primary reason I am speaking, though, is I want to say some heartfelt words about Mr. Boucher. Sooner or later this Congress is going to mercifully adjourn--and I hope sooner rather than later--and so I don't know how many more times we are going to be on the floor, but I wanted to say in his presence what an honor it has been to serve with him. He is a workhorse Member; he is not a show horse. He doesn't get involved in many, many issues, but when he does get involved, he is meticulous in his preparation and understanding of the issue and his detail. His word is gold. It is always good. On the rare occasions when I have disagreed with him, I have always been impressed with the merit of his argument. He will be missed. He is one of the Members who makes the institution work. He does it behind the scenes. He is always thoughtful and prepared and just a joy to work with. I had the privilege to work with him when I was the subcommittee chairman and he was my ranking member, and I have had the privilege to work with him while he has been in the majority as a subcommittee chairman. The work he and Congressman Stearns have done on privacy is work that will bear fruit in the coming Congress I hope. The work he has done on energy issues and telecommunications issues, his work will stand the test of time. I do want to support the pending legislation, but I also wanted to give the gentleman from Virginia my very best wishes. I look forward to working with him in whatever endeavors he pursues in the future. It has really been an honor to serve with you in the House of Representatives.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Utah. I want to thank the leadership on both sides for allowing and supporting this resolution. I'm happy in the House to be the primary sponsor. I also want to commend Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner for scheduling this so timely. I was told yesterday it would be on the floor at 2:45, and I walked on the floor at 2:43, and it was on the floor at 2:45. So that shows that the House can work in a bipartisan, efficient fashion when it so desires. Mr. Speaker, I was a White House Fellow in the class of 1981 and 1982 under President Ronald Reagan. I was one of 14 Fellows that year. I worked for the Secretary of Energy, the Honorable James Edwards of South Carolina, the former Governor of South Carolina. The Deputy Secretary was Ken Anderson, and my direct report was J. Hunter Child III, the director of the Office of Policy, Planning and Analysis. In my class in 1981-82, we had Mike Ullman, who's now the CEO of J.C. Penney; we had Paul Applegarth, who was a senior official at the World Bank and later became a Presidential appointee under President Bush. We had several military officers, Tom Shul, Ellie Heineman. We had a police captain from Oakland, Chip Stewart. And we had a cheerleader from the New England Patriots who later worked for the director of the FBI. So we had a very diverse class. The White House Fellows is nonpartisan. In fact, I don't recollect one political question being asked me in the interview process. To show you the caliber of the folks that interviewed me, in the semifinals at the LBJ School in Austin, Texas, I was interviewed by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Weddington, who was the chief attorney in support of Roe v. Wade. At the national finals in Washington, D.C., Ed Fuelner, who was then and now head of the Heritage Foundation, was one of the individuals who interviewed me. So you had very staunch Democrats and also very staunch conservative Republicans. But they were interested then and now not in your political views so much as they were interested in your vision for America and where you had been and, even more importantly, where you might go in the future. Most Fellows are in their late twenties to mid thirties. Some are as old as their mid forties. You serve for 1 year for one of the senior officials in the White House or the Office of the Vice President or a Cabinet Secretary. It's a very diverse experience. You have real work to do, as has been pointed out. You are paid at the GS schedule 14, but you also develop a friendship with your Fellows and you have what's called an educational program where you meet with officials of that administration but also leaders in the country. We met my fellowship year with, of course, the President, the Vice President, all the Cabinet Secretaries, but we also met with Tip O'Neill. We met with Tom Foley. Tip O'Neill was then Speaker and Tom Foley, I believe, was the majority leader or the whip. I think Mr. Foley was the whip. We met with Leon Jaworski who was the prosecutor in Watergate. Each fellowship class gets to go on some trips, both domestically and internationally. We took three domestic trips or four domestic trips. We went to California where Congressman Leon Panetta hosted us. We went to New York City, had a helicopter ride where we went over the old Yankee stadium. We went to Chicago, and I was able to get the class to come down to Texas, and we visited in Texas. It is a tremendous program. Since President Johnson initiated it in 1965, over I think 672 young men and women have served as White House Fellows. Members of this body include, in addition to myself, former Congressman Tom Campbell of California, former Congressman and Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, and in the other body, Senator Dave Karnes of the great State of Nebraska. It's a program that encourages you once you've been a White House Fellow to be in public service or at least community service, either in the business world or in your civic or, in some cases, elective office. I wouldn't be on the floor of the House of Representatives today, Mr. Speaker, if it had not been for the White House Fellows Program. I believed before I became a Fellow that Washington was this mystic place that most of the time was nonfunctional and very difficult to navigate. The White House Fellowship Program gave me a window on government in Washington, in both the executive and the legislative branches, and it showed me that there were people of good will on both sides of the aisle, in the executive and the legislative branches. It showed me that in spite of what some people think this is a very transparent, open process. If you have an issue and you want to have an impact in our America, that is still possible; and I cannot say anything but the most positive things, Mr. Speaker, about the White House Fellows Program. So I'm very glad on behalf of the other 671 former and current White House Fellows to be the chief House sponsor, very appreciative of it moving through the Senate, very appreciative of our Speaker and minority leader, Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi, putting it up on the floor; and I would certainly encourage a unanimous vote in support of it. I want to thank my good friend from Utah for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 72, to recognize the 45th anniversary of the White House Fellows Program. The White House Fellows Program, as envisioned by President Johnson, was designed ``to give the Fellows first hand, high-level experience with the workings of the Federal government and to increase their sense of participation in national affairs.'' In the fall of 1965, the first class of Fellows was named. The program is nonpartisan, and has remained so through nine administrations. Each year between 11 and 19 Americans are chosen for this once-in-a-lifetime experience. The Fellows are placed into various agencies of government and are then able to work hand-in-hand with leaders at the highest levels of government. In return for the Fellowship year, the Fellows are expected to repay the privilege of serving by continuing to work as private citizens on their public agendas. To date, more than 600 White House Fellows have served the Federal government and established a record of leadership and service. A number of former Fellows have gone on to serve their government and communities in important ways, by receiving appointments as Cabinet officials and senior White House staff, election to the House of Representatives, Senate, and State and local government, appointments to the Federal, State, and local benches, appointments as United States Attorneys, leadership in many of the Nation's largest corporations and law firms, presidents of colleges and universities, deans of distinguished graduate schools, officials in nonprofit organizations, distinguished scholars and historians, and service as senior leaders in every branch of the United States Armed Forces. In 1981, I was honored to be selected to serve as a White House Fellow in the Reagan Administration and was placed in the Department of Energy. This was an experience where I gained valuable insight and knowledge about leadership and public policy, and it was a privilege to serve in this unique capacity. I believe the White House Fellows program is worthy of recognition, and I commend those who have worked to make it a success and a national resource for all branches of our government.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think all that needs to be said has been said; so let me simply say that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with. I compliment those who negotiated the 1-year fix. Hopefully, in the next Congress, we will work together--and I mean that seriously--in a bipartisan fashion to replace the existing formula with one that doesn't have to be updated and fixed in every session of Congress. Yet, for today, I would urge all of those in the current minority to vote for the bill under suspension. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I ask the Chair how much time my friends on the majority have remaining?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from California for his courtesy. I would ask the Chair how much time I have remaining.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and of the Health Subcommittee, the current ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Dr. Michael Burgess of Lewisville, Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Republicans do rise in support of this 1-year fix for the reimbursement rate for physicians. Having said that, I think I was able to listen to some of what my distinguished subcommittee chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Pallone, was saying as I was waiting for the tram to come over here. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for Members on both sides of the aisle to put aside partisan politics and in the upcoming year or years, if it takes more than 1 year, sit down and let's really come up with a new formula to fix permanently how we pay our physicians. The current formula is based on an index that is based on inflation; and under the score keeping, any year in which medical expenses go up more rapidly than the general inflation rate, I am simplifying the index but this is the basic part of it, you have to find savings in that particular year or there is a negative balance created in the physician reimbursement fund. The current system is not sustainable. It doesn't work. It doesn't reflect the practice of medicine. But because of our score keeping, we keep getting further and further behind and so each year the 1-year cut gets bigger and bigger. This year it would be 25 percent. Now obviously when most of our physician community claims, and I think with justification, that they are not being adequately reimbursed for treating Medicare patients, you have the situation as you have in my district, and I am sure each of us can say in our own districts, in their districts, physicians are not taking Medicare patients. In my home county of Ellis County, the county seat is a community of about 30,000, Waxahachie, Texas. The mayor of Waxahachie is a personal friend of mine, and I have known him for over 20 years. His existing doctor retired. He is on Medicare. He is over 65. He went to find a new doctor who would treat him, and he couldn't find a doctor. Here is the mayor of Waxahachie, Texas, who at least temporarily cannot find a Medicare doctor who will accept him as a patient. That doesn't make sense. You can have the best health care system in the world, and if you don't have the doctors to implement it, you don't have a health care system. So it is my strong recommendation that Republicans--the current minority, soon to be majority--vote for this 1-year fix, knowing that it is really not a fix, that it is another kick-the-can, kick-the- problem down the road. But in this case, at least it is for a year. In the upcoming Congress and when the majorities switch, I am going to be a member of the committee of primary jurisdiction, the Energy and Commerce Committee. It will be my strong recommendation to our new chairman, Fred Upton of Michigan; to our new Speaker, Mr. Boehner of Ohio; and to our new majority leader, Mr. Cantor of Virginia, that we sit down with our stakeholders and with our friends on the soon-to-be minority side of the aisle to come up with a system that adequately reflects the will of both parties, that also gets buy-in from the stakeholders and reflects the cost of practicing medicine as it is today. I know it is going to be expensive. I know it is going to be difficult, but it will be possible, and I hope that we can do that. I would ask for a ``yes'' vote when it comes time to vote for this under the suspension calendar. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the gentleman's indulgence. We are going to have to suggest that the Members on the minority side vote ``no'' on the CR because of a number of reasons that our friends on the Appropriations Committee have alluded to. If we could have a conference between the House conferees and the Senate conferees on the food safety bill, we could come to some reasonable compromises where we could recommend a vote for the food safety bill as a stand-alone bill. That is still possible to do or would be possible if the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the Senate and the chairmen of the appropriate committees in the House and Senate were willing to go down that road. In this Congress, those types of conferences have been few and far between. So we are stuck here in a situation where you have a reasonably good piece of legislation that passed the House, a not as reasonably good piece of legislation that came out of the Senate at the last moment and is being attached to a continuing resolution that shows that the majority in both this body and the other body have refused to take their funding responsibilities very seriously for the last year. So as much as good as is in the food safety part of the bill, and as hard as Chairman Waxman and Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone have worked on that part of it, I still believe that the correct vote on this bill today is a ``no'' vote. So, Mr. Speaker, we do ask that Members vote ``no'' on this. The good parts of the legislation we will hopefully bring back very quickly in the next Congress and have a vote in regular order early in the year. With that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill today. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have no other speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.