Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee from the great Hoosier State of Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am sorry, Madam Speaker, that we have to be here today to spend money that the taxpayers don't have, that Congress can't afford, for an economic stimulus program that doesn't work. The provision that is in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee is the Federal Medicaid Assistance Program, specifically called FMAP. This is a program to help low-income constituents in a cost-share between the State government and the Federal Government. Spending on this program over the last 2 fiscal years has gone up almost 50 percent. The stimulus package that was enacted last year increased it an additional 6 percent, I believe, through December of this year. The bill before us would extend that extension until June of next year. There is no emergency in this program. There is no pending financial catastrophe in Medicaid. There is a long-term unfunded mandate, obviously, but in the short term this is not something that absolutely has to be done. The $16 billion that would be spent on this program ostensibly is to be spent for Medicaid, low-income health care assistance, but if you read the fine print, it doesn't have to. As we all know, Madam Speaker, money is fungible, and under this particular bill, while the nameplate says for Medicaid, the truth is the money can be spent for whatever purpose the State wants to spend it for. I don't think that's appropriate. We on the Republican side were prepared to offer an amendment in the Rules Committee last evening that would have at least said, if you're going to say the money is for Medicaid, it actually has to be spent for Medicaid. We were told that no amendments would be made in order and that they were put in what's called a martial law lock-down rule. So we did not offer that amendment, but it is an amendment that should have been offered and should be accepted. What this bill really is about is, in my opinion, some sort of a panic attack on the Democratic leadership side, that they see the election coming up and they need to get more money to their special constituencies, and this is a bill that would do that. So we're going to spend $180 million a day. We're going to be paying taxes on this money for the next 10 years. This $180 million a day is only for 6 months. It's not going to reduce the unemployment rate, which right now is a little under 10 percent. It's going to be used, purely and simply, for some of those States to have more money that might help constituencies that might help our friends on the majority side of the aisle. As I said earlier, the money that is in the jurisdiction of the committee that I'm on, Energy and Commerce, doesn't have to be spent for Medicaid. So I would urge a ``no'' vote, Madam Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman from the great State of Indiana, Mr. Mike Pence. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the starting third baseman on the congressional Republican baseball team, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of the committee from the great Pelican State of Louisiana, Mr. Steve Scalise.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, what we have here is a failure to communicate. My friends on the Democratic side are talking about things to help the economy. My friends and myself on the Republican side are pointing out that this is money that we don't have. There is no national emergency. The items that are being funded are items that historically have been funded at the State level with the exception of Medicaid, which is a State-Federal expenditure. And in that the program, the money doesn't absolutely have to be spent for low income health care assistance. If you look at the way the money is actually allocated, one State, the great State of New York, the Empire States, gets over 12.5, 13 percent of the funds. In fact, if you exclude California, New York gets more money than every State west of the Mississippi. As has been pointed out by Mr. Buyer of Indiana, New York has a Medicaid reimbursement rate at 350 percent of poverty, which is pushing about $80,000 for a family of four. This is money we don't have being spent on programs that are not in dire emergency at a time when the unemployment rate is 10 percent. Please vote no on this bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise in opposition to this bill. Obviously, I am not opposed to improving safety and regulation in the OCS. But I do want OCS drilling to continue. I want to thank Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Markey. The Energy and Commerce bill that was reported out, I believe 48-0, did improve safety, but it did allow drilling to continue domestically. In my opinion, with the taxes in this bill, with the punitive nature of this bill, if it were to pass and become law we would not have OCS drilling, and it would lessen the ability to develop our domestic resources, would increase costs to the American consumer, and make us more dependent, not less dependent, on foreign oil. There are some good things in the bill. Some of the safety provisions from the Energy and Commerce bill that are included on CEO certification and things of this sort are worthwhile. But overall, it is a bad bill, and I would ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time will be remaining, which I will control, after Mr. Stearns' 1 minute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. And finally, last but not least, in the amended bill that was sent to the Rules Committee yesterday, Mr. Speaker, they have changed the spending profile. Under the bill before us this evening, the program, while it is a guaranteed entitlement, funding would be cut by two- thirds in 2019 and eliminated altogether in 2020. That is simply a budget gimmick and is patently unfair to the people, if it were to pass and become law, that would be depending on the program. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we would ask for a ``no'' vote on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are not opposed to compensating the victims and the first responders of the World Trade Center attacks. We created a compensation fund within 11 days after the original attack back on September 11, 2001. The bill before us today, however, Mr. Speaker, creates a brand new entitlement program that could last an additional 21 years. It creates a special compensation system for hospitals in the New York City area at 140 percent of Medicare rates, provides special protections for trial lawyers, and creates a host of special programs and special protections. It also does not require any kind of a citizenship test, Mr. Speaker, to receive a benefit. It is, in fact, apparently a $7.4 billion new entitlement program. We know there are innocent victims in New York City that still need treatment, and we know that there are perhaps some participants who have fallen through the cracks who have not received exactly the treatment that they need, but this bill, quite frankly, is not the answer. In the markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee, Republicans offered a number of amendments that would have provided treatment, would have monitored benefits, and would have authorized funding for the existing program at the level requested by the President of the United States, President Obama. That amendment was rejected. H.R. 847 caps the number of people that can be enrolled in the program. As I said earlier, it doesn't require those enrolled, however, to verify their citizenship. We also offered an amendment to verify citizenship. That amendment was not agreed to. We also offered an amendment to means-test benefits based on income and assets. I think the amendment was at $1 million. That amendment was also rejected. So under this bill, somebody making millions of dollars is at least technically eligible for this program. I don't think that is fair when we have a budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. We also offered an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee to pay for the program by using money that has not been spent out of an existing program. That amendment was also rejected as not being what the majority wanted. As I said earlier, the bill before us would reimburse hospitals in New York at 140 percent of Medicare. We think that is not fair to the rest of the country to give a special rate above Medicare rates for this particular program.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from The Woodlands, Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield a very long 45 seconds to the gentleman from Buffalo, New York (Mr. Lee).

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have a letter from the Associated General Contractors, which we will put in the Record, saying that they support the bill, but they hope certain changes are made in conference with the Senate. And for those of us that have to be up, since my mother is watching, we want to say, Hi, mom. I support the bill and urge a ``yes'' vote. The Associated General Contractors of America, Arlington, VA, July 29, 2010. Re Key vote alert, H.R. 5320, ``The Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010''. Hon. Joe Barton, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Barton: On behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America, and our 33,000 member companies, I am writing you today to support H.R. 5320, the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act (AQUA) of 2010.'' AGC reserves the right to designate this bill and as a Key Vote, which will be used in a report card to its membership as an indicator of your support for issues of significance to the construction industry. This legislation authorizes $4.8 billion over three years for the EPA Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) which will help ensure consistency, giving communities the ability to leverage federal funds and plan capital investments, H.R. 5320 represents a smart investment in the nation's outdated drinking water infrastructure that will help put Americans back to work. America's aging infrastructure is in need of replacement and rehabilitation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's most recent Drinking Water Needs Survey, $334.8 billion is needed to close the investment gap over the next 20 years. Unfortunately, our nation's water infrastructure needs have grown while federal funding for clean and safe drinking water has steadily declined. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did provide significant resources for enhancing our water infrastructure; however, the years of steadily declining federal investment continues to push costs on local governments and rate payers. Furthermore, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) an average of six billion gallons of potable water is lost per day in the U.S. due to leaking pipes. Last year alone, American communities suffered more than 240,000 water main breaks and billions of gallons of overflowing combined sewer systems, causing contamination, property damage, disruptions in the water supply, and massive traffic jams. However, AGC maintains serious objection to the inclusion of ``Buy American'' provisions similar to those in the Recovery Act that require that the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in projects funded by the bill be made in the U.S. These requirements artificially constrict the supply chain, particularly with projects in the water and wastewater field as many of the products are unavailable domestically as evidenced by the nonavailability waivers that EPA has had to grant during the course of the Recovery Act. AGC further believes that measures like this that lock many of our trading partners out of projects opens U.S. manufacturers up to retaliatory measures abroad, restricting their ability to profit from contracts in other countries. This market is not fully equipped to handle requirements like these, and many of the provisions that simplify these requirements at the federal level, like the trade agreement exemptions, are a complicated morass at the state and local level. For these reasons, AGC opposes this provision of the bill and hopes it will be removed by amendment or in conference. By investing in our nation's critical water infrastructure, H.R. 5320 will build a foundation for future economic growth while generating the construction, manufacturing, and engineering jobs that are needed today. Sincerely, Perry L. Fowler, Director, Municipal & Utilities Construction Division. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I rise in support of the reauthorization of H.R. 5320, the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation, which has been worked on, as Chairman Markey just indicated, on a bipartisan basis, both at the subcommittee and the full committee. It would reauthorize the Safe Water Drinking Act for the first time since 1996. It includes some new information, requires some scientific studies, but says that those studies actually have to be based on best science. It has an authorization level of a little over $4.8 billion. This is an increase of the existing authorization, but it is a compromise from the introduced draft which I believe was about $15 billion over 5 years. So this is Congress at its finest. It did pass 45-1. I hope it passes the House unanimously. With that, I urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5320, the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010. Although H.R. 5320 is not perfect, it is, however, a good compromise that will ensure drinking water is safe. The introduced bill authorized the Safe Drinking Water Act's Revolving Loan Fund at $14.7 billion over 5 years. This amount is nearly the entire amount appropriated by the Federal government for the program for the past 14 years combined. After discussion, we agreed on $4.8 billion over three years. H.R. 5320 also contains provisions dealing with substances in drinking water that might disrupt the human endocrine system. And H.R. 5320 now requires that best available science be used and that studies comport with requirements of valid science. They must have verifiable measurements with small error rates, and be both well-controlled and repeatable by independent scientists. Mr. Speaker, I think the drinking water revolving loan fund is a real success in meeting the public health needs of 272 million public water system customers without imposing unfunded mandates on States. The program has helped finance more than 6,600 drinking water projects throughout the country, using federal funds to supplement and leverage investment from other sources. I support how this bill makes rural areas a priority in obtaining technical assistance for compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. And I also support efforts to aid disadvantaged communities that have trouble meeting the requirements of the Act. I remain concerned, however, about the expensive prevailing wage requirements in this bill and what they mean for federal and State governments. But on balance, this bill is a solid step forward for safe drinking water. It spends much less than its Senate version and puts real science in the driver's seat at EPA. I urge an ``aye'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think the longer we talk, the less enthusiasm we have on this side for this bill, but we're still for it. I want to yield 1 very quick minute to the distinguished Congressman from the Woodlands, Texas, Mr. Kevin Brady.