Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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.

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ability to leverage federal funds and plan capital investments, H.R. 5320 represents a smart investment in the nation's outdated drinking water infrastructure that will help put Americans back to work.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

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. So in the spirit of the moment, we cannot say that Chairwoman Slaughter ran a closed rule out on us. It was an open rule. It was a fair competition. Luckily, for both sides, the real winners were, as you said it, the Boys and Girls Club of Washington, DC, and the Washington Literacy Council. I do want to commend my Republican team. I am very proud of them. John Shimkus pitched his heart out. Bill Shuster made an almost unassisted double play when he caught the ball and picked somebody off at first base. Every member of our team got to play. They all were in good spirits and good fellowship. We will show up next year with warmth in our hearts, and we will continue this tradition, hopefully, with a more pleasurable outcome for our side. Congratulations to you, Mr. Doyle. You ultimately deserved the win. You played better. We congratulate you.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, there have been those on the other side of the aisle who, from time to time, have spoken of the lack of generosity, of the stinginess, and of the coldheartedness of the Republicans, but the seventh inning last night should put that to rest forever. We were very generous. Every man of the Republican nine made some effort in generosity of spirit to drop balls, to misplace throws, or to go out of their way to make sure that, at least on the diamond, the Democrats would feel good. Now, we don't want this to go to your head, though, Mr. Doyle. That trophy is on loan. If you would look wherever the records are kept, if you win the next 20 in a row, there would still be more ``R'' wins than ``D'' wins.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the ranking member's yielding additional time. The GRID Act would shield both our bulk power system and the infrastructure serving critical defense facilities. The legislation authorizes the President to address imminent grid security threats through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, better known as FERC. It would give FERC the authority to issue notice-and-comment rule to address grid security vulnerabilities. As Mr. Markey pointed out, this bill is revenue-neutral. It does not increase the Federal deficit in any shape, form, or fashion. It is worthy of support. I want to repeat again, it came out the Energy and Commerce Committee 47-0. I hope the House will unanimously vote for this and send it to the other body.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment Chairman Markey for referring to Mr. Upton as ``Chairman Upton.'' That may be a foreteller of things to come, and we appreciate his prescience in acknowledging that possibility. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of H.R. 5026, the Grid Reliability and Infrastructure Defense Act, better known as the GRID Act. This is an example of legislation that has come to the floor after a 47-0 bipartisan vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee that shows what the Congress can do when Republicans are allowed into the room to help draft and put into place legislation. While it is a rare occasion in this Congress, it certainly is something that both sides of the aisle can be proud of. I want to especially commend Subcommittee Chairman Markey, Full Committee Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Upton, and others on both sides of the aisle to make this day possible. Our electric grid is increasingly vulnerable to cyber attack, and if a nation-state or a terrorist group were successful in crippling our electric grid, it would have devastating consequences for our economy and our national defense. We've read news stories reporting allegations that spies may have penetrated the mechanisms that control our power supplies. Cybersecurity experts report that the ``smart grid'' we are counting on to improve reliability and enhance consumer choices could also increase our exposure to hackers in places like China and Russia. Our defense community is concerned about possible electromagnetic attacks from terrorist or hostile countries. We must take substantive action to address the susceptibility of our electric systems to such attacks. The stakes are just too high for us to do nothing. The GRID Act, Mr. Speaker, takes care of all these problems.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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. Madam Chair, the bill before us today is not a bad piece of legislation. Mr. Ehlers, for example, of Michigan is one of the Republican cosponsors of it. Mr. Welch of Vermont has sought assistance across the aisle. Mr. Markey, Mr. Waxman, the full committee and subcommittee chairmen, have taken a number of amendments in subcommittee and full committee and I think generally worked in good faith. Having said that, here we go again, Madam Chair. It's Thursday. This is the only bill this week that we are going to have a rule on. This is an authorization bill, as Chairman Waxman just said, but it authorizes $6.6 billion to be spent over a 2-year period, and makes no attempt to find a way to pay for it. So it's another new program with all the right feel-good intentions, but it's all hat and no cattle as we would say down in Texas. In committee, Chairman Waxman, to his credit, did say that the bill should be paid for. He did encourage Congressman Latta of Ohio, who offered a pay-for amendment that the bill would be paid for, if he would withdraw it he would work with him, and yesterday we did have some discussions with the chairman on how to pay for it. Those discussions did not provide a satisfactory conclusion to either side, so Mr. Latta went to the Rules Committee and asked that his amendment be made in order. Eight amendments were made in order, but his amendment was not, Madam Chair. Chairman Waxman is correct when he says this is an authorization bill so you don't have to have a pay-for. That is true in a technical sense. But I think it's time for this Congress and certainly our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, to show the American people that, if we want to create new programs, we don't want to increase the deficit, borrow money to pay for them. We should be able to find a pay-for. Just as it's true that it's not technically necessary because this is an authorization bill, it's also true that we could set a precedent and set a practice at least in our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, of saying if we are going to create new programs we are going to show where the money should come from. There is not a real need for this program at this point in time. In the so-called stimulus package earlier in this Congress and in the last Congress, we authorized and I think even appropriated $5 billion in weatherization funds and grants for the Department of Energy. Now, that program operates a little bit differently than the program in this bill would operate if enacted into law. But we can't tell that the Department of Energy, Madam Chair, has spent any of that money that's already been authorized and appropriated. And that's $5 billion. Why have another $6.6 billion program when you haven't successfully implemented the current $5 billion program? Again, that weatherization program is somewhat different in the way it's structured than the pending bill, but the goals of it are very, very similar to this bill. The definition of insanity, Madam Chair, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That appears to be what we are doing here today with the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act. It's another chapter in saying one thing, trying to put something out that looks good, feels good, but doesn't really have the substance to back it up. So I have great respect for the authors of the legislation, great respect for the leadership of my committee on the majority side, but I don't believe we should authorize a $6 billion program without a pay- for or an indication of how we intend to pay for it. I think that's too much, and I think it's bad public policy with a deficit of $1.5 trillion. We will support some of the amendments, Madam Chair. There are eight amendments. As the ranking member of the full committee, I believe I am going to recommend a ``yes'' vote on six of the eight, maybe seven. But on final passage I will recommend a ``no'' vote. Madam Chair, we'd be hard-pressed to find a single Member of Congress who thinks energy efficiency is a bad idea. Everybody wants to lower energy consumption because we want to cut our electricity bills. Additionally, manufacturing and installing energy efficient products for the home can be a boon for businesses and jobs across the country. The market works. Home Star will cost taxpayers $6.6 billion over the next 2 years. With the tidal wave of spending that has roared out of Washington over the last 18 months, sometimes $6.6 billion might not sound like much, and that's exactly why we need to start looking at programs like Home Star much more carefully. Without a payment mechanism in H.R. 5019, what we have is an authorization that simply instructs the Federal Government to spend $6.6 billion over the next 2 years. Then we here in Congress are supposed to figure out where to get the money. Who believes that's going to happen? This legislative artifice defies the majority's own Pay-As-You-Go rule, not to mention the public's trust, and it assures that deficits will go on expanding. It didn't have to be that way. Our newest colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Latta of Ohio, offered an amendment in the markup that would apply Pay-Go rules to this legislation. It was withdrawn through an agreement with the committee chairman that spending details would be worked out before H.R. 5019 reached the House Floor. Yet here we are today, still without a way to pay for this program. This is not the first government program we've examined in the 111th Congress to encourage home energy efficiency. In the so-called Stimulus Bill, Congress authorized $5 billion for home weatherization funds and grants. After an entire year, the Department of Energy has admitted to accomplishing virtually nothing with this amount of money. How are we to believe DOE can handle $6.6 billion for a newly-created program when it has proven it can't handle $5 billion to complement a program that already exists? Like the $5 billion in weatherization funds, Home Star is supposed to create jobs. But if past is prologue, we are right to be skeptical of such a claim. While the stimulus bill was being debated, the economic alchemists in the White House told us it would cap unemployment at 8 percent. This was supposed to be achieved partially through dramatic expansion of government programs like home weatherization. But thanks to Obama administration bureaucracy and the built-in inefficiency of all government programs, the money has been spent without taxpayers getting the benefits that their money was supposed to buy. The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result, and that's precisely what we're doing here today with the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act. It's another chapter in the story of the Obama administration: Excitement followed by spending followed by disappointment. In a time of exploding deficits, bumbling government and economic recession, Congress could do America a favor by paying for the programs it enacts. We should begin today. Until we are willing to pay for it, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. With that, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Upton of Michigan control the balance of the time on the minority side.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Would the gentleman yield briefly for an answer to his question?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the substantive parts of the motion to recommit are pretty straightforward. It would sunset the legislation if there is a negative net effect on the Federal budget deficit. That is the Latta language that we have already spoken to. It would change the rebate mechanisms so that the rebates go to the homeowner and not to the contractor. This would limit fraud and abuse. It strikes the $12 million EPA public information campaign. As I pointed out in my floor statement, bees know where the honey is, bank robbers know where the bank is, teenage boys know where the teenage girls are, the public will know how to get this money. And finally, it strikes the Home Star energy efficiency loan program. We already have record defaults in the home mortgage industry. We don't need to be leveraging that any bit more. With that, I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in its current form I am.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished Speaker. Now that the Members know exactly what is in the motion to recommit-- I am sure you all listened to every word that the Clerk read--let me explain it in Texas terms very quickly before I yield to Mr. Latta. The first thing that the motion to recommit would do would be to sunset the legislation if it has a negative effect on the Federal budget deficit. Mr. Latta is going to speak about that in a second. It would change the rebate mechanism in the pending bill so that the money would go to the homeowner instead of to the contractor. We think this would be more efficient and less susceptible to fraud. It strikes the $12 million EPA public information campaign which was the purpose of the Burgess amendment which was defeated earlier. It strikes the $324 million Home Star energy efficiency loan program. It would exclude pool heaters from the Gold Star program. If people have enough money to have a home swimming pool in their backyard, they probably don't need a government program for a home swimming pool heater. It would disqualify participation by homeowners with a gross annual income of over $250,000. As President Obama has pointed out, if you make more than $250,000, you're doing pretty well. It would require qualified contractors to certify that no employee they employ has been convicted of a crime of child molestation, rape, or any other form of sexual assault. And, finally, it would prohibit any use of the Home Star funds for folks on government business traveling to areas where there are establishments for gaming. With that, I would yield to my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Latta) for him to talk a little more about his specific deficit reduction amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. In the spirit of trying to get Members who wish to catch 3 o'clock planes out of town by 3 o'clock, the minority is prepared to accept the Deutch amendment and would encourage the majority in the same spirit to limit their comments on the upcoming Republican amendments so that all Members, regardless of party affiliation, may spend the evening at home in their districts with their loved ones. We support the Deutch amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chair, the minority has no objection to this amendment. We support it and would urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I commend the Chair for her fairness in calling that last vote. I appreciate that sincerely. Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. How much time do I have remaining, Madam Chair?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself 2 minutes. Well, my esteemed colleague from Massachusetts is at least talking about my amendment now. That's progress. He used the term ``black hole.'' I'm sure he knows, since scientists at MIT in his home State have investigated black holes extensively, that there is mounting evidence that the universe could not exist without black holes. So I think it would be appropriate in this bill to put at least one black hole in this because it would enhance the viability of the overall program. Again, we are trying to protect the taxpayers who are putting up the money or the loan officers who are sending the money to the U.S. Treasury in terms of government bonds to pay for this program. We are not attempting to change the loan program. We think the loan program itself is an excellent idea if you're going to have this type of a program. We simply want to protect the taxpayers and also point out, once again, that the underlying bill is a 2-year bill. We don't want a self-perpetuating loan program that would take on the form of an entitlement. So vote for the Barton black hole amendment, and let's put some limitation on taxpayer liability. With that, I am going to reserve what little time, if any, I have left.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself the final 30 seconds. Madam Chair, only my friend from Massachusetts could filibuster in a 5-minute time-limited debate. Those last comments, as far as I could tell and to the extent they were substantive, were absolutely true. We do eliminate subsection G, and that is all we eliminate. That is the section that creates the reloan provision. So he is right about that. I think he is misinformed about the rest of his comments, and I would hope that he would support the elimination of one little subsection, subsection G. Vote ``yes'' on the Barton amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume, subject to the 5-minute limitation. As always, Madam Chairwoman, I am deeply moved by my friend from Massachusetts' eloquent words. The problem is nothing he said really directly relates to the Barton amendment. We're not striking the loan program. We're not changing the authorization level. We're not saying that low-income homeowners who wish to use the program cannot borrow funds under this bill if it becomes a law. What we are saying is that once they've borrowed the funds, once they've been spent in the proper fashion, and hopefully once they've been repaid, the repaid funds will go towards deficit reduction. Since this is an authorization bill, and since it's not funded anyway, according to the distinguished chairman, you would think that they would be willing to accept a small Barton amendment that simply says, if the program is ever funded, and if it actually is implemented, as people use it and pay the money back, that money goes to pay the poor taxpayers back who have labored long and hard to pay the taxes that make the program possible in the first place. So, again, I am deeply moved by my friend from Massachusetts, but I hope that he is as deeply moved by my remarks and would change his position and support the Barton amendment. I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my friend from Dallas. It embarrasses me when my colleague from Vermont says nice things about me, since I'm opposing this bill. I will say before I list some of my concerns that there was a lot of input asked for and received by Republicans both in the committee and outside of the committee. This is not a terribly bad bill, but it has one fatal flaw: It is not paid for. It, in my opinion, authorizes and, if the authorization is actually appropriated, spends more money than we need to be spending in an era of $1.5 trillion per year budget deficits. Mr. Latta of Ohio did offer a pay-for amendment at committee. It simply said that this bill must not increase the deficit. There was some discussion. Mr. Latta was asked to withdraw. The chairman, Mr. Waxman, said he would work with Mr. Latta. There were kind of desultory conversations at the staff level, until yesterday, after a markup of another bill, which at that time Chairman Waxman did sit down with Congressman Latta and myself. There were fairly serious discussions yesterday afternoon. Those discussions were not satisfactory to either side. The end result was that Mr. Latta went to the Rules Committee and offered his original amendment that he had withdrawn in committee. In its infinite wisdom, the Rules Committee chose not to make the most important amendment requested, in my opinion, in order. They made an amendment in order by myself, which is an okay amendment. So I thank Congresswoman Matsui and the other Democrats on the Rules Committee for accepting that amendment. But the crux of it, in an era with $1.5 trillion annual deficits, any new program, no matter how good, we should pay for it. If it's an authorization bill, we should put in the authorization bill that it should be paid for, that it will be paid for. Now, the circuitous argument was: since this is an authorization bill, doesn't cost anything, you don't need a pay-for. Well, why not set the precedent? Let's make it a point as this Congress, if we really are concerned about the deficit, let's say, if we start a new program, we'll pay for it, and tell the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee we want this paid for. Now, Republicans want to pay for it by reducing wasteful spending. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.