Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Can I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a distinguished minority member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Could I inquire as to the time I have remaining.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first, let me express my heartfelt condolences to my friend from Massachusetts on the Yankees' ascendancy last night. I am one of many, many, many people in this country who, while I'm not a Red Sox fan, do not put me down in the Yankee Blue column. So maybe my Rangers one of these days will come up and at least tussle with the Red Sox and the Yankees for the American League pennant. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Before I go into my prepared remarks, I think it's educational to explain to the body what we're actually marking up. We had two bills that came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I would assume out of the Homeland Security Committee that were marked up and subject to debate. We had a bill in the Transportation Committee that, from what I can tell, was never marked up, and we now have merged the two work products from Homeland Security, the two work products from Energy and Commerce, and a work product from the Transportation Committee that was never publicly marked up and changed them in this bill and then it's going to be yet changed again in the manager's amendment in the nature of a substitute tomorrow so that the bill that we will actually be voting on is a bill that has never seen the light of day as a single bill. Now, on the surface all these bills, or this bill, this merged bill, should pass 435-0. The Chemical and Water Security Act sounds like something that's a suspension calendar bill. The problem is, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us has almost nothing to do with security in the sense of protection against terrorism. It has everything to do with what I consider to be radical environmentalism under the guise of homeland security. Let me elaborate on that in the written remarks. The approach in this legislation is deeply flawed. The overreaching problem is simply this: Protecting chemical facilities and drinking water systems from terrorist attacks should not be done under the umbrella of environmental law. If it's about stopping terrorism, we ought to be talking about computer security and fiscal security and prevention and terrorism tracking and all of the things that really make these facilities safer against terrorism. Instead, we're debating something called IST, inherently safer technology, which is a chemical process, a manufacturing process, so that you process the water, you process the chemicals in a fashion that is safer from an environmental standpoint or perhaps from a safety standpoint for the workers in the surrounding community. Mr. Chair, that has nothing to do with protecting against terrorism. H.R. 2868 goes beyond the reasonable requirements that have been the core of many Homeland Security programs for several sectors. Vulnerability assessments, site security plans, emergency response plans, these are real things that should be done and are being done to protect our chemical and water facilities against terrorism, but we're substituting in this bill for this IST and these environmental requirements that really have nothing to do with security. We have an existing security regime in place for chemical facilities and water systems, including a chemical security program that the Congress passed 3 years ago, which is still in the process of being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security. My good friend from Massachusetts talked about how that was put into law back in 2006 and seemed to intimate that it was not thoughtfully done. I would assure my friend that it was very thoughtfully done. The Energy and Commerce Committee at that time had primary jurisdiction, and my concern, as chairman of the committee at that time, was that we really shouldn't do something on an appropriations bill. We should do it through the regular process. But because it came late in the year, we did yield to the appropriators and put it in the omnibus bill. But even doing that, we spent weeks debating and working with the Homeland Security Committee and the stakeholders to come up with what, today, I think is a better process than what is in this bill. It is considered that the existing chemical plant security program that we already have is going to cost $18.5 billion in public and private investment right now. The reasonable thing to do, in my opinion, is to let that program be implemented before we scrap it with a totally new concept from this Congress. We need to know what the deficiencies, if any, are in the existing program before we move to a brand new program and a brand new concept. This legislation refuses to honor common sense when simplistic ideology seems to offer a quick return on a political investment. More to the point about this being an environmental bill is the fact that I am struck by some of the key words used in the entire legislation to address terror prevention. For example, page 10, line 20 of the amendment in the nature of a substitute--and I want to be very clear about this--defines a ``chemical facility terrorist incident'' as a ``release of a substance of concern.'' If you look up the definition of ``release,'' starting on page 12, line 19, that mirrors the exact language of the toxic waste cleanup law, which we call Superfund, right down to making its covered universe of ``hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.'' Mr. Chair, this means that the Department of Homeland Security is now going to treat an environmental accident or an environmental cleanup as a terrorist incident. Now, I don't want to imply that an environmental accident is not a serious issue that needs to be dealt with seriously, but it's not a terrorist attack if you have a spill of a toxic chemical at a chemical facility. It's an accident. It's a problem. It needs to be dealt with. There are environmental issues. But it is not a terrorist incident. It is not a terrorist attack. But if this bill becomes law and you have that type of an accident, it is going to be a terrorist incident, and it has to be considered by the Department of Homeland Security. I think that is ludicrous. I think it's wrong. I think it is shortsighted, and I think it is unnecessary. I'm an industrial engineer. I understand, to some extent, plant processes and chemical processes and things like that. I think we're very blessed in this country to have a robust chemical industry, much of which is located in the States of Texas and Louisiana on the Texas and Louisiana gulf coast. If this bill becomes law, my projection is that within 10 years or so, many of those facilities are going to be closed down and inoperable, and tens of thousands of jobs are going to be lost because our chemical industry is simply going to move offshore. They're not going to stay under a legislative proposal that, on the surface of it, is almost impossible to be implemented. I am not convinced that there is a single, true, security-enhancing thing about the specific requirements in this bill, and I know for certain that we're already making these facilities do types of things under the EPA's risk assessment program and OSHA's process safety management program that this bill then doubles down on. We have existing laws and existing processes to handle the issues these bills really do handle. The concept is an engineering process philosophy. Congress has repeatedly heard expert testimony that the provisions in section 2111 of this bill are expensive, hard to define because of significant technical challenges, and very tough, if not impossible, to enforce. Further, even if these problems did not exist, the Department of Homeland Security does not even have the professionals it needs to make informed decisions on how to operate the program or give guidance to those who have to implement the program. Let me repeat. This legislation is not directed at preventing terrorist attacks. It is, instead, directed at setting up a regulatory regime under which the Department of Homeland Security and EPA employees, who really don't know much about production processes at the Nation's chemical and drinking water facilities, are going to force and have to make key technical decisions--not security decisions--technical, manufacturing, process decisions about those processes. As if this were not enough, the legislation weakens the protections traditionally given to high-risk security information by treating need- to-know information like environmental right-to-know data. I am for transparency in government, but why should we give the terrorists that we're trying to prevent from attacking these facilities almost an open book to go in and, under those open meeting requirements and open record requirements, get information that could allow them to concoct schemes to destroy those various facilities? These provisions are not just troubling to me because this legislation will allow for more information, ironically, to be made publicly through litigation but, more so, because it's going to be very hard to penalize people that reveal this information to the public. As one of my Democrat friends said in the committee markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee, ``Loose lips sink ships,'' and there are few repercussions under this bill for somebody with loose lips. I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but let me simply say, this is a bad bill at the wrong time. It's unnecessary. I hope that we can have a bipartisan vote against it, and I hope that we can defeat it. I do want to say one good thing about the process. Mr. Waxman and Mr. Markey did have a subcommittee markup. They did have a full committee markup, and a number of amendments have been made in order by the Rules Committee for the minority to try to improve the bill, and for that, I am thankful. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Stearns) to control.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats finally unveil their manager's amendment later this week, we will have 72 hours to look at it and decide whether we want to vote for it. But one thing we know for sure, it will cost at least $1 trillion; more than we are spending today on health care, more than we are spending in the Federal budget. One trillion dollars over 10 years. As I look around the gallery, Mr. Speaker, I see many folks about my age, but I also see some constituents who are young, just getting started. Do they want to spend an average of $10,000 a person right now if this bill becomes law? I think not. Republicans have a better idea. We will unveil our Republican leadership alternative later today or tomorrow. It will actually save money. And by the way, it will cover preexisting conditions. And by the way, it won't have all of the mandates. And by the way, it won't have the health choices administrator telling us what is good for us rather than our doctor telling us what is good for us. Vote against the Democratic plan and vote for the Republican alternative.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the majority side have stood before this body today asking about the Republican alternative, where it is. Well, I would ask my friends on the majority side, where is their bill? The three committees in the House of Representatives each passed different bills back in the summer. Those bills haven't been merged. The Senate passed a conceptual document. Legislative language is not yet public on that bill. We will have a Republican alternative, and I can tell you right now what will not be in it. There won't be individual mandates that millions of Americans can't afford. There won't be employee mandates that thousands of small businesses can't afford. There won't be a health care choices administration that tells the private insurance sector what kind of coverage they have to provide. And there won't be a comparative research bureaucracy that could easily lead to rationing of care. There will be a national pool that covers all preexisting conditions. There will be subsidies for low-income Americans. There will be some sort of a compensation package for our health care providers. So I would ask my majority: Where is their bill?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his leadership on this issue until I could arrive on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009. This is the second reauthorization of this piece of legislation. It was originally passed approximately 10 years ago. It was reauthorized the first time, I believe, 4 years ago and expired at the end of this month. And so with the leadership of Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone, with the support of Ranking Member Deal, myself, and Congresswoman Mary Bono, we have been working with the majority to bring this bill to the floor and reauthorize it because of the importance of the programs which it has jurisdiction over. This is a program which has provided care for millions of Americans that have been affected by HIV and AIDS. It provides primary care services and drug assistance as a payer of last resort for those individuals that have these afflictions. The bill before us includes several legislative priorities that I would like to highlight. It does allow States additional time to report their HIV/AIDS cases by names versus the old, inaccurate code-based system but does not release States of the requirement to move towards the more accurate name-based reporting. The bill also continues reforms that were put in place 3 years ago that will move these programs closer to ensuring that funds are allocated to the existing need--and I am going to highlight existing need--for States and localities. The legislation establishes a new HIV/ AIDS testing goal of 5 million citizens through Federally supported HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and care programs. The bill also reestablishes the notification of possible exposure to infectious disease provisions, which will allow notification to emergency responders of a possible communicable infectious disease. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of this legislation in this Congress and was chairman 3 years ago when we reauthorized it. This is a high priority for the country and the committee. And again, I am very pleased that Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone agreed to a regular order process so that we could reauthorize this bill in a timely fashion. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to close the debate. This is an important piece of legislation. It has been worked over several years on a bipartisan basis. Chairman Waxman and Chairman Pallone have been extremely positive and very gentlemanly in their approach to this bill. We are glad that it is being reauthorized in a timely fashion. We urge a strong bipartisan vote of ``yes'' on this bill.

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

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

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here today because the Democrat leadership apparently doesn't know what our senior citizens have known for the last 6 months. I held a town meeting in Wortham, Texas, in August. The population of Wortham, Texas, is approximately 1,100 people perhaps. A constituent, a senior citizen, stood up at my town hall meeting and asked me if it was true that their Medicare part B premiums were going to go up while their Social Security COLA did not increase. I said that I did not know, but I would check it out. I had my staff check it out, and sure enough, they were telling the truth. Well, yesterday, right before the Energy and Commerce Committee markup was scheduled to conclude, I got a note from my staff that there was going to be a special meeting of the Rules Committee last evening and that we were going to have a same-day rule and have an emergency bill put on the floor today to hold harmless our senior citizens who choose Medicare part B and who are having their premiums go up. I asked the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Mr. Pallone, if he knew anything about it, and to his credit, he said he was aware of it, but he had just become aware of it. I said, Well, why didn't we have a hearing on this? Why didn't we have a markup? Why didn't we find out what the policy is? Why didn't we do all kinds of things? To his credit, his answer was that it was just something that had to be done. Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm tired of the Democratic leadership waiting until the last moment. And to give them the benefit of the doubt, they don't know what's happening in these programs, so they have to scramble. Or they do know, and they don't give a darn about what the process is and what the policy is. I think it's inexcusable that we are here on the House floor today on a bill that there's not any serious opposition that we need to do something but I think there is a real policy debate about how to prevent this from happening in the future. For my friends who don't really know a lot about Medicare part B, Medicare part B is voluntary. It is the part of Medicare that handles physician payments and outpatient reimbursement. Now, most Medicare recipients choose part B. About 98 percent choose part B. Within part B there are three classes of Medicare beneficiaries. There are Medicare beneficiaries that have a high income. There are Medicare beneficiaries that have average incomes, and there are Medicare beneficiaries that have low income. Under current law if you have been covered in Medicare in a prior year and you don't have a high income, you don't have a low income, you are held harmless by the current law. But if you're a new Medicare beneficiary, in other words, you weren't on the program last year, if you're a high-income Medicare beneficiary, or if you're a low-income Medicare beneficiary, then you're not held harmless. And those groups, about 25 percent of the total Medicare population, are the people that were going to have their Medicare premium increased. The current premium this year is about $96, and under current law if you weren't protected, it would go up to about $104. So that's about an $8 increase or a little over maybe 7 or 8 percent. So under years when the average inflationary and the consumer price index goes up, there's a Social Security COLA increase. So if Medicare expenses go up, which they did last year, the Medicare part B premium goes up but the Social Security benefit goes up, and since Medicare part B premiums are deducted from Social Security, then that is kind of offset. But this year we didn't have inflation. The consumer price index, because of the recession, didn't go up; so our seniors didn't get their Social Security increase. But Medicare spending went up last year because we haven't reformed the program. So the Medicare part B premium, which is optional, went up; and if you weren't protected, your premium went up. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of policy questions there. Maybe we need to change the current law. Maybe we need to protect all Medicare part B beneficiaries. Maybe we need to look at these high-income seniors? Did we have that hearing? Did we have that policy debate? No. The Democrat majority is simply putting this bill on the floor saying let's take $2.7 billion and let's hold everybody harmless. Well, now that's good politics. I am not negating the politics of it. But is that good policy? My good friend Mr. Pallone from New Jersey said not one dime is going to be added to the deficit. Well, he didn't tell you where the money's coming from. Here's where the money is coming from, and I have read the bill. Luckily, it's only two pages; so it's not that hard to read. But here's where the money is coming from: It is coming from something called the Medicare Improvement Fund; $567 million is coming from the Medicare Improvement Fund. That's a fund that our majority has set up in a bill last year, and I think, and I could be wrong and Mr. Pallone could tell me, he probably knows, that there's about $20 billion in that fund. And the rest of it is a transfer that is coming from the Treasury of the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, and they're going to take $567 million from this what I call a temporary fund, and then they are going to take the rest of it from the General Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund. So they're taking money that has been paid in by our Medicare taxes and they're just saying we're going to use some of that money. That trust fund's going broke. It's in the red and going broke every year. We're just going to take some of that money and use it this year. Plus we're going to take some of the money from the special fund that we set up last year. Now, there are all sorts of policy questions there. So our friends on the majority are right to say for this year, for this $2.7 billion, there's no added borrowing; but they are wrong to say, in my opinion, that it's not adding to the deficit because they are taking money out of the general Medicare fund that we're going to need in future years and they're taking money from this special fund which I may be wrong in but I think was set up with borrowed money from the general fund. Again, the minority is not objecting to the fact that for that 25 percent of our seniors that are not protected by ``hold harmless'' that we do something to help them. But we are very upset that it has been done so cavalierly on such short notice with absolutely no process at all. Democracy cannot work, Mr. Speaker, if we don't let the people know why we are making decisions, what the policy implications are, not to just our senior citizens but to all our citizens. I am not going to ask for a ``no'' vote because we do need to do something. But I am going to ask that my friends in the majority really think about holding a hearing on this, even though it will be after the fact, so we can get the facts on the table and that we try to set up a process so that we don't have to next year and the next year and the next year come out here with absolutely no advance warning and no real understanding of what the long-term implications of this are. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) and ask unanimous consent that he control that time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 709, I inadvertently missed the last vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit documentation consistent with the Republican Earmark Standards. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton Bill Number: H.R. 3326--Department of Defense Appropriations Bill Account: Army RDT&E Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Federal Technology Group Address of Receiving Entity: 2421 Thomas Rd., Haltom City, TX 76117 Description of Request: I have secured $1,500,000 in funding to be used to develop and produce an application called ``reactive materials,'' which is a system designed to defeat Improvised Explosive Devices, thus protecting America's war fighter.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit documentation consistent with the Republican Earmark Standards. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton Bill Number: H.R. 3326 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill Account: Navy RDT&E Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Carbon-Carbon Advanced Technologies (C-CAT) Address of Receiving Entity: 4704 Eden Road, Kennedale, TX 76060 Description of Request: I have secured $4,000,000 in funding to be used for the continuation of the fabrication development process by refining the design and manufacturability, improving the necessary subscale hardware durability and finally, conducting a full scale demonstration of the hypersonic weapons system at an approved test facility as it relates to the Strike Weapon Propulsion (SWEAP) system.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we could use another 2 to 3 minutes, if you have it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the former Republican Conference chairman and probably future Governor of Florida (Mr. Putnam).