Joe Barton

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 Latta went to the Rules Committee and offered his original amendment that he had withdrawn in committee.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.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Deutch 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. 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. 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. Would the gentleman yield briefly for an answer to his question?

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment gives the American people the right to petition the Congress for redress of grievances and to express freedom of speech. Several weeks ago, the chairman of the committee that I serve as a ranking member on, Energy and Commerce, Chairman Henry Waxman, sent a letter to several U.S. corporations for having the temerity to express their displeasure with the health care bill and to inform their employees and stockholders of the consequences of that piece of legislation. He has opened an investigation into those companies, and we have a hearing next week. Two days ago, Chairman Waxman sent a letter to the American Farm Bureau, opening an investigation into their activities expressing their displeasure with the EPA endangerment finding and the pending cap and trade legislation in the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned when one of the premier committee chairmen of our great House of Representatives appears to be using his power to intimidate Americans from expressing their First Amendment rights to petition the Congress for redress of grievances. I think that's a sad state of affairs, and I think that is something that maybe should be investigated.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I think it's time for us to take a deep breath, take a timeout and go home and listen, Mr. Speaker. So I asked the Rules Committee this evening to not move this package tonight, but let us go home for the next 2 weeks and then come back week after next or week after 2 weeks and actually fix what needs to be fixed. I listened when my chairman, Mr. Waxman of California, talked about the reconciliation package before us fixes the Nebraska problem. Well, the way they fix it, Mr. Speaker, is by giving every other State the same sweet deal they gave to Nebraska but only for 4 years. After 2014, that deal goes away for Nebraska and every other State. I don't think that's much of a fix. No one on the majority side, Mr. Speaker, has talked about the Medicaid trap. When this fully kicks in in 2014, everybody that's eligible for Medicaid in the country, that is below 133 percent of poverty, has to be in Medicaid and that's their only choice. They cannot be in a private sector plan. And obviously we all know they don't have the option of not taking the coverage. Some of us think that that may be unconstitutional. Even if it's not unconstitutional, I don't think it's fair to our low-income Americans to say that the only health insurance plan you can have is Medicaid. We have talked about the preexisting conditions, Mr. Speaker. This bill does require that preexisting conditions be covered. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. But it's not funded. They have only got $5 billion in this bill for 4 years. That's a little over a billion dollars a year. You can't cover 8 to 10 million Americans that have preexisting conditions and no insurance today for $1.25 billion a year. I call that the preexisting short sheet. And, finally, this reconciliation package doesn't do anything to prevent the requirement in the original Senate bill that's now the law that elective funding of abortion be offered in at least one plan in each State. I really believe if there was an up-or-down vote on that again in this body, that that would be voted down. Please vote against this reconciliation package rule. Let us go home and listen to our constituents. ``Unorthodox Process'': My friend from California Mr. Dreier coined the process and procedure that has been forced upon as ``at best, unorthodox.'' But it doesn't have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. There is no deadline that says we need to push this through tonight. Let's do it right. Hoping for similar luck to have I had last Saturday when I asked that Rules drop the ``deem and pass'' scheme and they did, I asked this afternoon in the Rules Committee for an extension on this reconciliation vote until after the two-week recess. We could talk to our constituents, hear their thoughts. We could look for more issues that will need fixing and then fix them. There is no deadline that says we need to push this through tonight. Let's do it right. The new version of the reconciliation package that we vote on today reflects two relatively minor changes made by the Senate to education program provisions in the bill. We had to strike these provisions because they violated the Byrd Rule that governs budget reconciliation bills in the Senate. But that's the point, Mr. Speaker. We rushed, rushed, rushed and made mistakes. I shudder at the thought of the additional mistakes we'll need to fix as we finally have time to digest this massive law. My Democrat colleagues insist that the Senate bill is law, signed by the President, and that there should be no more debate on the policy. But just because it received an entirely partisan majority, and just because it was signed by the President, doesn't mean it's good law. This was a partisan process, a partisan bill, with bipartisan opposition. This Act increases the penalty on individuals who fail to comply with the new requirement to maintain Washington-bureaucrat-approved insurance coverage: Modifies the individual mandate penalty in three ways: (1) exempts income below the filing threshold from the calculation of the penalty, (2) lowers the flat dollar penalty from $495 to $325 in 2015, and from $750 to $695 in 2016, and (3) for individuals paying a penalty based on family income, changes the penalty from 0.5% to 1.0% of family income in 2014, from 1.0% to 2.0% of family income in 2015, and from 2.0% to 2.5% of family income for 2016 and later years. This Act increases the penalty on employers who fail to comply with the new requirement to buy their employees Washington-bureaucrat- approved insurance coverage: Increases the annual per-employer penalty from $750 per employee to $2,000 per employee, and subtracts 30 full-time employees from the penalty calculation (e.g., a firm with 100 employees would have to pay the $2,000 annual penalty on 70 employees; (100 - 30) x $2,000 = $140,000 total annual penalty). This Act adds even more federal-mandates on all insurance plans: Makes health insurance more expensive by requiring grandfathered health insurance plans--those in existence today--to (1) eliminate lifetime limits on benefits; (2) restrict annual limits on benefits within six months of enactment; and (3) cover certain married and unmarried adult ``children'' up to age 26. Group plans may no longer exclude coverage for a pre-existing condition for any child under 19. This Act traps 90 million people into Medicaid, a broken welfare program that half of doctors refuse to accept: Increases federal outlays on the Medicaid program by $434 billion during 2010-2019, $48 billion more than the enacted bill. The bill eliminates the ``Cornhusker Kickback,'' (permanent 100% federal financing for Nebraska's newly eligible Medicaid populations) but it still includes the ``Louisiana Purchase'' (increased federal funding for the State of Louisiana) and other special deals for certain states.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee. (Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from the Peach State of Georgia, Dr. Gingrey. (Mr. GINGREY of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from the Pelican State, Mr. Scalise, another member of the committee. (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono Mack).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And, finally, Madam Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to another member of the committee, the distinguished Mr. Mike Rogers from the great State of Michigan.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. PAULSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Deal, for 1 minute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for 1 minute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. ROGERS of Alabama asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to a member of the committee from the Keystone State of Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the bluegrass State of Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)