Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise in respectful and regretful opposition to the continuing resolution. The primary reason that the Energy and Commerce Committee has time on the floor is because of the inclusion of the Food Safety Act in the continuing resolution. The food safety bill that passed the House last year was the result of bipartisan cooperation between Chairman Waxman, Subcommittee Chairman Pallone, Chairman Dingell, myself, then-subcommittee Ranking Member Nathan Deal, and others on the Republican side. It was the result of a number of years of work. It was an open process, it was an inclusive process, and the result was a very strong bipartisan vote both in the committee and on the House floor. I believe on the House floor, 59 Republicans joined with almost every Democrat to send that bill to the Senate. The bill that's come back from the Senate that's been included in the continuing resolution is not the House bill, as amended. It is a Senate bill that is significantly different in several respects. The inclusion of what's called the Tester amendment in the Senate bill means that some farms, small farms along the borders between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada would be exempt from some of the requirements of the bill. The methods of payment are different. The House had a registration fee, an annual registration fee. That is not included in the Senate version. There are a number of tax issues with the Senate bill that we have a problem with here in the House; if it was not included in the CR, the food safety bill would, in all likelihood, be subject to what we call ``blue slipping'' here in the House of Representatives. So it really is difficult to be in opposition to the food safety bill because of the unity of purpose and the spirit of cooperation that existed in the Energy and Commerce Committee when the food safety legislation was passed last year. But our friends in the other body, as is more often than not the case, have tended to ignore our work product and send us theirs at the last moment with a ``take it or leave it'' attitude. Ranking member and soon to be Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas and I have sent a letter to our Speaker suggesting that we would be more than willing to go to conference with our friends in the other body. We're going to be in session at least another week, perhaps two. We could have a conference. We could probably agree on a bipartisan, bicameral food safety bill that would pass muster in both bodies. I'm still hopeful that that might occur. With regards to other items in the continuing resolution that are not part of the Food Safety Act, there are numerous things that we find objectionable. The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission is going to receive $350 million, which is an increase of over 4\1/2\ percent from fiscal year 2010. It's even more than $14 million, as I understand it, than what they perhaps asked for. In the continuing resolution in terms of health provisions, there is funding for several sections of the health care law that we believe to be objectionable. The funding for public awareness, for example--so far, HHS has spent over $3 million for television ads featuring one of my favorite actors, Andy Griffith. ``The Andy Griffith Show'' and Barney Fife were one of my favorite television shows when I was growing up, and I continue to watch it on reruns. But I have a little bit of a problem watching Mr. Griffith extol to seniors the important new benefits of the current health care law simply as a kind of a pitch master for something that, in all likelihood, we're going to change, perhaps even repeal next year. Independent groups have found that some of these ads have misled seniors. They claim benefits that will be available while ignoring cuts to Medicare Advantage and other reductions in the Medicare payment rate. I think this is misleading and unfortunate. In the area of telecommunications, the continuing resolution exempts the Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act. This would allow the government to obligate money for carrier subsidies before we actually have the money in hand. Most of us on the minority side, soon to be the majority side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, find that to be very objectionable and, quite frankly, irresponsible. So again, on the food safety bill that passed the House, I voted for it. I have nothing but respect and compliments for the leadership of Mr. Waxman, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Pallone, and others. But the CR version of the food safety bill that we're asked to vote on today is not the bill that came out of the House. And for that reason, regretfully, I oppose it. And on the basic CR overall, there are numerous reasons from an Energy and Commerce perspective on the minority side of the aisle to oppose that. So we would ask for a ``no'' vote, Mr. Speaker. I reserve 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 continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. On the House-passed bill, not this bill, but the House-passed bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in respectful but sincere opposition to the pending bill. I have no disrespect for the victims or for the namesake's sponsor and his family, but I also have a sincere regard for the United States taxpayer, who is going to have to pay for this new entitlement program. The first myth that I want to relate is the implication that we don't have an existing victims' compensation fund. That is simply not true, Mr. Speaker. Twelve days after the attack back in September of 2001, we passed Public Law 107-42, the Victim Compensation Fund of 2001. We gave 2 years, or a year and a half, for people to submit claims, and 97 percent of the eligible victims or their families filed injury or death claims by December 22, 2003. Of the 2,973 victims, 2,880 families filed claims. The average award for the families of the victims actually killed in the attack averaged $2 million per victim while 70 people chose to file lawsuits and 23 eligible families took no action. In addition to death claims, 2,680 injury claims have been filed and processed. The average award for injured victims is nearly $400,000 per injury. Overall, this fund has paid out over $7 billion in the last 9 years. We also passed the Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act back in 2001 so that the families of the victims would not be subject to Federal income taxes for the year of the attack and also for the previous year to the attack. We currently have an existing 9/11 benefit program. President Obama requested $150 million for this budget year. In the years that this program has been in existence, in addition to the program I just explained, it has paid out $373 million. As of September 30 of last year, there have been 55,331 first responders in the monitoring and treatment programs that I have just discussed. Of those, 44,754 have received initial exams, and 13,000 have been treated for World Trade Center-related health conditions in the past 12 months alone. So, in point of fact, we have an existing fund that has paid out over $7 billion. We have an ongoing fund. The President has asked for $150 million per year, which the Republicans support. On top of that, we are expected to vote for this new entitlement program, which is over $7 billion. My good friend from New Jersey said that it is going to save $1 billion over the bill that was reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee several months ago. What he doesn't tell you is the way they do that, which is by using a budget gimmick that simply doesn't fund the program in the year 2019. In fiscal year 2018, the amount provided in the bill would be $601 million. In 2019, that drops to $173 million. In fiscal year 2020, there is no funding at all. So they have simply decided that, at a date certain, they would start reducing the amount of money so they could get under their self-imposed budget window. Mr. Speaker, we want to help the victims of 9/11 in New York City. We certainly want to help the first responders. What we don't want to do is put on the average American taxpayers all around the country a $7 billion to $8 billion brand new entitlement program that compensates at health care/Medicare rates of 140 percent above the baseline. As Congressman Smith just pointed out, it reopens some of these lawsuits and some of these cases that have already been solved. So, if you want help, we are willing to help, but let's use the existing program. Let's not create a new program, especially a new entitlement program, which we simply cannot afford at this point in time. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, be given the opportunity to control the balance of the time for the Energy and Commerce Committee's minority.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Republic of China's National Day on October 10th. Today I join the Taiwanese people as they celebrate their freedom. Taiwan has peacefully transformed itself from an authoritarian regime to full-fledged democracy. It will hopefully constitute a model for the eventual establishment of a genuine democracy in China. The United States and Taiwan value human rights, civil liberties, a free press and the rule of law. Our shared values have produced a strong and dependable friendship for over sixty years. Today, the people of Taiwan determine their own destiny and government through free and fair elections. The Republic of China was one of the first to come to our aid after the events of September 11th attacks and Hurricane Katrina devastations. Taiwan continues to be our ally in the war against terrorism by providing humanitarian assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan. In honoring the Republic of China, we need to continue to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan fulfilling our commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act. Despite the goodwill that has been gradually built up between Taiwan and China, the possibility of military confrontation continues to exist in the Taiwan Strait. A well-armed Taiwan is the best guarantee to perpetuate peace and stability in the region. To ROC President Ma Ying-jeou I say ``good luck.'' I remain hopeful that our relations will continue to be strengthened in 2011 and beyond. Certainly, the capable leadership of Ambassador Jason Yuan has helped to further our relations with the government and people of Taiwan.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the Chair give that consideration to Members of the minority if we happen to be tardy and dawdling? We certainly are cognizant of the graciousness, but the House of Representatives is a busy place, and I always thought if you weren't here, you lost your spot in the lineup.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Okay. So we're getting a pig-in-the-poke here; is that right?

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would ask the author's designee, Mr. Butterfield, if he would engage in a colloquy on this amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Would you define what a ``passive house'' is? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am not disparaging of the Chair's nonbiasness. I hope we will have that similar consideration.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We had a similar bill on the floor back in May; and in that bill we offered a motion to recommit, which passed, which struck the Home Star loan program. This bill, the bill that we struck the loan program from back in May, was a $324 million authorization. This bill has come back to us at a $5 billion authorization. That is a little bit of a puzzlement. If it didn't make sense in May to start a new program for $300 million, it doesn't make sense in September to start the same program except for $5 billion. So, if for no other reason, we should vote against this bill. The second point I want to make is that the programs in the bill are worthwhile. I know that seems to be a little bit inconsistent with what I just said, but it is not that these are bad programs. The question is can we afford them when we have a deficit that is going to be between $1.2 trillion and $1.4 trillion this year? In another energy efficiency bill that has become law last year, we authorized, and I think we appropriated, $4.7 billion for the Department of Energy to do the same sort of programs that this bill would authorize. Today, the Department of Energy has spent about 10 percent of that, a little less than $500 million. So they have over $4 billion that has been appropriated that hasn't been spent. Now, I'm not casting stones on the Department of Energy. It probably makes sense to take your time setting up the program and making sure you get the processes and the requirements to participate in the right form. But if we have an existing program that has been appropriated and has over $4 billion surplus in it, I don't see the need for another program. One may say, well, this is for rural America or for specific homeowners. But, to my knowledge, and I have got the Agriculture Committee here, there would be no exclusions because of the location under the program that the Department of Energy is currently implementing. I would point out that 2 years ago the Federal debt was a little under $6 trillion. We have added almost $3 trillion to it in the last 2 years. I can't see that there is much net improvement that has happened to our economy with the expenditure of that much money, the addition of that much money to the debt. It is not a case, Mr. Chairman, of coming to the floor and saying, This is a good program, support it. With these kinds of deficits, I think we need to think as a body, Is this a program that is absolutely essential and is it worth adding more to the public debt to pass this program? And with all due respect, while this is a good program, it is not a program that I think we should add to our children's and our grandchildren's debt. So I would urge a ``no'' vote at the appropriate time. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the bill before us and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' There is a growing tide of voices in this country calling for less government, less spending, and less debt. These concerns stretch across party and region. Our national debt presents a crisis we have mistakenly ignored for far too long. But after nearly two trillion dollars have been spent on a failed economic stimulus package and programs to prop-up our financial system, we need to examine every dollar authorized with the utmost scrutiny. If we apply just the slightest amount of examination to this bill, it becomes difficult to defend the premise on which the Rural Energy Savings Program Act rests. Take the so-called stimulus bill for instance. In early 2009, Congress authorized the Department of Energy to spend an additional $4.7 billion on its home weatherization program. Improved home energy efficiency is a great way to ensure savings for the homeowner and helps lessen our overall consumption of electricity. Programs that speed efficiency measures along should be a no-brainer. But twelve months after $4.7 billion was handed to the Department of Energy for these purposes, we found out we had little to show for it. In that time, DOE had spent only 10 percent of its new funds to upgrade around 30,000 homes around the country. This was supposed to be another ``shovel-ready'' stimulus project that would create thousands of jobs and improve energy efficiency in hundreds of thousands of homes. In that pursuit, the program was a complete failure. The bill before us today basically seeks the same goals using the same byzantine structures and bureaucracies that failed us before. If we can't trust DOE to handle increased funding for an already-existing program, how can we trust DOE and the Department of Agriculture to handle billions of dollars for an entirely new program? The simple answer is we can't. On top of the issue of government shortcomings is the question of cost. H.R. 4785 authorizes $5 billion in taxpayer money without any means of finding a way of paying for it. Again, we're ignoring the Majority's own pay-as-you-go rules. These rules, as the voters were led to believe, were created to help stop the bleeding of funds into the pool of national debt. But over the past few years, we all realize it is a grand illusion. Our country is at its greatest level of debt since the end of World War II--62 percent of GDP. We cannot keep adding a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there thinking the cost of these programs have no effect. Somewhere we must put a stop to the bleeding. And if we look at government's past performance in improving home energy efficiency and weigh the costs with the benefits, we cannot logically justify tallying $5 billion in additional red ink. I can only conclude from the reading of this bill that my opposition was not necessary from the outset. Had this bill properly made its way through the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture Committees, we would have had a better chance at learning more of the program's advantages and disadvantages and, through committee markup, had the opportunity to make improvements that would have eliminated the debt problem and further developed the accountability measures that are absent from this legislation. As we've seen so many times in this Congress and the one before, regular order has been ignored and incomplete legislation results. Mr. Chair, it does not always have to be this way. I support making homes more energy efficient and government efforts that properly pursue that goal. H.R. 4785 will not accomplish that task and simply creates more problems than it solves. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. What is the protocol when the author of an amendment is not on the floor and the amendment is called?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is there a prescribed waiting period? Are we in a holding pattern around an airport or, within a minute, no-show, no- go?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am not totally opposed to this amendment. I don't know too much more about it than Mr. Butterfield, but I do know that this ``passive house'' concept, while it saves energy once it is in place, is more expensive to construct. It is my understanding that the concept that the amendment supports is substantially more expensive than standard construction. That may be appropriate when people have high incomes and when the cost of construction is really of little interest; but for most of my constituents, Mr. Chairman, the initial cost is of significance. Again, I don't think there is a tremendous downside to this amendment, but I think it should be pointed out that if the Department of Energy, which it is not under the amendment required to mandate this, did direct that it had to meet this test, you would raise construction costs substantially, and I think that is something that should be of concern. I am going to oppose the amendment but not vigorously. I do think that the author of the amendment usually should be on the floor when the amendment is offered, and I would hope that we would take notice that the author was not. We should give kudos to Mr. Butterfield for substituting in his place. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I'll make it short and sweet. This is the same bill that was rejected under suspension back in May, with the exception that the authorization on the Home Star program has been increased by 13-fold. I suggested a ``no'' vote then. I continue to suggest a ``no'' vote and would ask for a ``no'' vote at the appropriate time. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to continue with the bill. If the author is not here, he has lost his opportunity to offer it. So I would ask unanimous consent to move forward in consideration of pending business of the House and to skip over the amendment.