Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Congresswoman from Illinois, a member of the Science Committee, Congresswoman Biggert.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Can I inquire how much time we have on the last part of the debate?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is there somewhere physically in the House of Representatives a copy of what we are voting on?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee from Denton, Texas, or actually Flower Mound, Texas, Dr. Burgess.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman, Mr. Pence of Indiana. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I submit documentation consistent with the Republican Earmark Standards. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton Bill Number: H.R. 2996--FY10 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill Account: Capital Improvement and Maintenance (construction) Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Davy Crockett National Forest Address of Receiving Entity: 18551 State Highway 7 East, Kennard, TX 75847-7207 Description of Request: I have secured $475,000 in funding in H.R. 2996 in the Capital Improvement and Maintenance account for the Davy Crockett National Forest. The funding would be used for developing a detailed site plan, redesigning and upgrading the camping loops, utilities, control systems, facilities, road and parking improvements as well as repairing the historic Dam and spillway.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. But congratulations to Mike Doyle. We should give him a big round of applause because he deserves it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I was slow to get on my feet. I was going to object to this breach of the rules of the House allowing Mr. Doyle to speak out of order, but I was too slow. It is a very disappointing sight, Mr. Chairman, to see that trophy in an unaccustomed place. But last night at National Stadium, the Democrats--very uncharacteristically--played like Republicans: They played very well; they played as a team; they even played by the rules, Mr. Chairman. And as a result, they won the game fair and square 15-10. I want to commend Mr. Doyle for his excellent managerial skills, Mr. Baca, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Bishop who were the tri-MVPs. I want to commend on our side our MVP, Gresham Barrett; John Shimkus, who pitched and did well, and Sam Graves who made several highlight catches in the outfield. It was a good game. The Democrats did deserve to win--but don't get accustomed to it because we will be back, in the spirit of good competition. And as Mr. Doyle said, it was for the Washington Literacy Council and the Washington area Boys & Girls Club. I do want to thank the Nationals for letting us use their field, and my guess is they will be calling up some of the Democrats to play on their team since you have a better winning record now than they do.

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. 2847--FY10 Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act Account: COPS Law Enforcement Technology Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Deep East Texas Council of Governments Address of Receiving Entity: 210 Premier Dr., Jasper, TX 75951-7495 Description of Request: I have secured $1,000,000 in funding in H.R. 2847 in the COPS Law Enforcement Technology account for the Deep East Texas Council of Governments. The funding will be used to purchase AFIX Tracker automated fingerprint and palm print identification systems, AFIX Verifier single-finger verification systems, and AFIX Identifier 2-finger live capture identification systems, including hardware, software, installation, training and support to Sheriff's Departments and Police Departments across the 12-county region.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, in Texas we implemented a program called Air Check Texas, which was designed to replace older, polluting vehicles with newer ones. The program succeeded in getting vehicles 10 years or older--or those that had failed an emissions test--off of the road. The program in Texas focused mostly on older vehicles because they emit 10 to 30 times as much pollution as newer vehicles. In fact, vehicles that are 13 years old and older account for just 25 percent of miles driven, but 75 percent of all tailpipe emissions. While I support Representative Sutton in her Cash for Clunkers and I am a co-sponsor because I believe in both the stimulative and environmental benefits of getting older vehicles off of the road, I don't believe that the arbitrary 18 mpg combined efficiency requirement for the trade-in vehicle is beneficial. Setting an arbitrary number like 18 mpg leaves a lot of folks with older, polluting vehicles behind the wheel of these cars because they can't afford a new car without the $3500 or $4500 this voucher would provide. As the bill is currently written, a 1986 Peugeot station wagon with a 20 mile per gallon combined efficiency would not qualify for the voucher, but a 2009 Mercedes Benz station wagon would, because it has an EPA combined efficiency rating of 15.5 miles per gallon fuel. Clearly the intent of the bill is not to subsidize the new car purchase of a 2009 Mercedes driver. So let's think a bit more about our 1986 Peugeot driver and helping him or her improve the efficiency and tailpipe emissions of that car. Expanding this program to model years and failed emissions tests-- like the successful program in Texas--will achieve a more far-reaching success than the program as written. I support this legislation, but as the legislation moves forward I believe the combined efficiency requirements for the trade-in vehicle should be dropped and a model- year approach should be explored.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, on May 20th, Taiwan will celebrate its president's first anniversary in office. Mr. Ma Ying-jeou was inaugurated president of the Republic of China (Taiwan) last May. His inauguration marked the second peaceful transfer of power from one political party to another, a result of Taiwan's progress toward full democratization during the last two decades. Today Taiwan validates itself as a mature, successful democracy. We are proud of its political transformation and wish Taiwan well in its future. In addition, Taiwan is our 9th largest trading partner and imports from the United States in 2007 totaled over $27 billion. In recent years, Taiwan has been fully collaborating with us to combat global terrorism, as evidenced in part by its participation in the Container Security Initiative and its generous contribution to the Pentagon Memorial Fund. Under President Ma's leadership, we look forward to a strong and deepening of relations between Taiwan and the United States. In closing, we congratulate Taiwan for its participation in the World Health Assembly meetings this May and also Taiwan's rapid rapprochement with the Chinese mainland. Both sides have reached a number of significant agreements, thus vastly reducing tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Congratulations to the people of Taiwan on their president's first anniversary in office.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I, along with Mr. Stearns, introduce legislation designed to reform some of the Federal Communications Commission's byzantine regulatory processes. As the pace of competition and technological change increases in our country's communications markets, sound decision-making at the FCC and faith in how it makes those decisions become all the more important. Not only are the issues far more complex, they affect far more Americans and American businesses than ever before. The bill would do much to improve the quality of the FCC's decisions and the country's trust in the agency. First, the bill would codify the not-so-radical notion that the FCC should let the public see proposed rules before it adopts them, and should provide everyone with a realistic amount of time to comment. If the FCC expects the American people and the regulated community to respect its decisions, I don't think it is too much to ask the FCC to show some respect for them in return. Not only will this improve everyone's confidence in the FCC's decisions, it will improve the decisions themselves, both because the agency will be forced to exert more rigor in developing policy, and because the public and the regulated community can often be the source of the best ideas. Secrecy breeds both inefficiency and distrust, and the FCC already has enough of both. Thus, the bill requires the FCC to provide at least 30 days for comments and 30 days for replies on published language of proposed rules. Letting the sun shine in and the public have a say on what they see won't be worth much unless the commissioners are provided a reasonable amount of time to review the comments and evaluate any proposed decision document. The bill therefore requires at least 30 days after the submission of reply comments, as well as an adequate amount of time for Commission review of a draft document, before the FCC renders a decision. Nor is it unreasonable for those waiting on a decision to know when resolution will come, whether in their favor or against. In a rapidly evolving market, particularly in difficult economic times, uncertainty itself can be one of the greatest obstacles to investment and business planning. Consequently, the bill requires the FCC to set deadlines for action on the various types of decisions it makes. And when the Commission adopts a decision, the text of that decision should march quickly into the public realm. The longer it takes for that language to come, the more it begins to look like the decision was not really made when the FCC said it was, but rather ironed out later through last-minute, back-room deals. Guilty or not, the FCC is widely suspected of changing its mind between decision and regulation. Under the bill, the FCC would have 30 days from adoption of a policy to release the actual text of the decision. Statistics also are becoming increasingly important. The only reason for regulation should be a failure in the marketplace, and the American people deserve more than vague assertions from regulators that a rule is necessary. The bill therefore requires the FCC to publish a schedule of all its statistical reports, both to ensure that those reports are actually issued regularly and so that everyone can know when. Transparency and good management should not be partisan issues, and I hope all my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation. I look forward to working with them, with the industry, with the public interest community, and with the FCC to help make commission decisions as well-crafted and unassailable as possible.

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. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Account: Buses and Bus Facilities. Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T). Address of Receiving Entity: 1600 E. Lancaster Avenue, Fort Worth, TX 76102. Description of Request: I have secured $1,425,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Buses and Bus Facilities account for CNG bus replacement by The T, Fort Worth, TX. The funding will be used to purchase coaches to replace the oldest vehicles in The T's fleet to be completed by October 31, 2010. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton. Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Account: Elementary and Secondary Education (includes FIE). Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Ennis Independent School District. Address of Receiving Entity: 303 W. Knox, Ennis, TX 75120. Description of Request: I have secured $238,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Elementary and Secondary Education (includes FIE) account for the Alternative Learning Center, Ennis ISD, Ennis, TX. The funding will be used to establish an alternative approach to education for some of its most needy students. The Alternative Learning Center (ALC) will provide flexible hours for students to take core academic subjects needed for graduation as well as to participate in a variety of work/ study programs to be better prepared for the workforce. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton. Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Account: Higher Education (includes FIPSE). Legal Name of Receiving Entity: University of Texas at Arlington. Address of Receiving Entity: 701 South Nedderman Drive, Arlington, TX 76019. Description of Request: I have secured $143,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Higher Education (includes FIPSE) account for the University of Texas at Arlington Systems Engineering Testbed: Systems Engineering Learning and Research Reinvented. The funding will be used to provide a unique simulation environment for students to study, predict performance, and analyze changes prior to project implementation; provide access to systems engineering tools at various phases of a project lifecycle; and serve as a resource for systems engineers to utilize for training. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton. Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Account: EERE. Legal Name of Receiving Entity: University of Texas at Arlington. Address of Receiving Entity: 701 South Nedderman Drive, Arlington, TX 76019. Description of Request: I have secured $1,403,463 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the EERE account for the Center for Renewable Energy, Science and Technology (CREST). The funding will be used to build state-of-the- art facilities at UT Arlington. This funding will enable CREST researchers to fully explore National energy objectives by studying (1) alternative energy technologies, including clean coal, biomass feedstock, solar photovoltaic devices, wind, and fuel cells; (2) cost- effective delivery of energy for both vehicles and electric power generation via optimal planning and management of hydrogen distribution and power grid integration; and (3) intelligent energy decision-making, including power monitoring, environmental, and economic issues. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton. Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Account: COPS Law Enforcement Technology. Legal Name of Receiving Entity: City of Arlington. Address of Receiving Entity: 101 W. Abram St., Arlington, TX 76004- 3231. Description of Request: I have secured $500,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the COPS Law Enforcement Technology account for the City of Arlington, TX. The funding will be used to purchase interoperable communications equipment and to help equip a secure, integrated Police, Fire, and Transportation preparedness and emergency response center in Arlington's Entertainment District (Texas Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, Six Flags Over Texas, the Arlington Convention Center, the GloryPark development and the Dallas Cowboys Stadium Complex). Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton. Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Account: Corps of Engineers, Construction. Legal Name of Receiving Entity: City of Arlington. Address of Receiving Entity: 101 W. Abram St., Arlington, TX 76004- 3231. Description of Request: I have secured $1,914,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Corps of Engineers, Construction account for Johnson Creek, City of Arlington, TX. The funding will be used to reduce flood damage, stabilize Johnson Creek's streambed and stream valley, restore riparian areas and wildlife habitats, mitigate and prevent silt accumulation, improve water quality and provide an important recreational amenity that traverses the entire City of Arlington. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton. Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Account: Facilities and Equipment (FAA). Legal Name of Receiving Entity: City of Arlington. Address of Receiving Entity: 101 W. Abram St., Arlington, TX 76004- 3231. Description of Request: I have secured $963,300 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Facilities and Equipment (FAA) account for the Medium Approach Lighting System, Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, TX. The funding will be used for construction and installation of a Medium Approach Lighting System at the Arlington Municipal Airport to supplement and enhance the existing Instrument Landing System (1LS) for Runway 34. Requesting Member: Congressman Joe Barton. Bill Number: H.R. 1105--FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Account: Economic Development Initiatives. Legal Name of Receiving Entity: Arlington Chamber of Commerce. Address of Receiving Entity: 505 East Border, Arlington, TX 76010. Description of Request: I have secured $190,000 in funding in H.R. 1105 in the Economic Development Initiatives account for the Center for Innovation. The funding will be used to complete The Center for Innovation at Arlington, TX.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. I want to start out by talking a little bit about the process. I know that is not very sexy. But when the President and people complain that Republicans are not being bipartisan, they need to know that we haven't been given much of a chance, if any of a chance, to be bipartisan. As this bill started in the House, there were no hearings in the House of Representatives. There was a markup in Ways and Means and a markup in the Approps Committee and a markup in the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Energy and Commerce Committee that I am on, Mr. Waxman, to his credit, had a 12-hour markup, and five Republican amendments were accepted. Three of those were stripped out before the bill came to the floor; one was kept in as is, and one was materially changed. When we went to conference with the other body, our chairman Mr. Waxman was appointed a conferee, as he should have been, because it is about $200 billion of the bill is in the Energy and Commerce jurisdiction; but no Republican, no minority member was appointed. So we had no Republican input into the conference. Of course, that is probably okay, because it really wasn't a conference. There were five House conferees and five Senate conferees. The majority party Members, three on the House and three on the Senate, signed the conference report without anybody actually on the Republican side being given a copy to look at. So it was kind of a done deal. So on process alone, when the President asks why Republicans tend to be appositive of the bill, it is because we really were not given any input into the finished project. On the policy, the Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over energy, over telecommunication, and over health care. The energy section, they took out all the energy grants for things like clean coal technology. They left in a little thing called electricity decoupling; which means, in order to get some of these green energy grants, the Governor of a State has to certify to the Department of Energy's Secretary that they are going to do this decoupling. That means that you can allow the PUC to decouple the price you pay from the amount of electricity that you use. So it is a revenue guarantee for the utility; so as the utility gets the green grant and goes out and educates you on how to use less electricity, you use less electricity, your bill stays the same or goes up. It is the most anticompetitive, anticonsumer, antifree-market piece of legislation I have ever seen on the House floor and it is in this bill. On health care, my friends on the other side have made a big point of talking about all the things they are doing on health care. Well, you have the health IT grants, which some of that may be good, but do you really need to give every doctor in America $44,000 to switch to electronic records? And, oh, by the way, a lot of that money is not available in 2011, until 2012? I am not sure that is very stimulative of the economy. We give the States more FMAP money for Medicaid. It doesn't have to be spent on Medicaid. Fifty percent or 65 percent is allocated on the standard formula package, and the rest is allocated on high unemployment. But the once the State gets that Medicaid money, they can use it for other purposes. And, oh, by the way, that is theoretically temporary. But do you really believe that adding $90 billion to the baseline for Medicaid is going to be temporary? It is going to go into the permanent baseline, and it is going to raise the cost over time to the U.S. taxpayer. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. But the point of the subject is those of us on our side, we understand that people are hurting, we understand that we need to do things to help the economy. Shouldn't we start by keeping the people that have a job, let them keep a little bit more of their money by doing some tax cuts? A lot of those got diluted in this bill. Shouldn't we require that, if you are going to spend money, it has a long-term effect, it helps basic infrastructure? This bill doesn't do that. Vote ``no.''

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am not.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. It's unprecedented.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank the distinguished ranking member. I assume I'm rising in support of the bill, so I guess I need to compliment our distinguished chairman and our ranking member on this excellent legislative work. But what I really want to talk about is the no-conference conference on the stimulus package. I just came out of a meeting with Leader Boehner, the minority leader. There is going to be some sort of a conference meeting at 3 o'clock this afternoon in the LBJ room on the other side of the Capitol. We've been told, though, that the Speaker and the majority leader have locked the conference down, and they want to have it voted on and passed by 6 o'clock Friday afternoon so that the Speaker can go on her trip to Italy and Afghanistan. So, in this meeting in Leader Boehner's office, since I'm not a conferee, even though we've got about $200 billion of jurisdiction on the Energy and Commerce Committee, things like Medicare and broadband and something called electricity decoupling, where people that actually use less electricity are going to pay more for it, I'm not sure I understand how that's stimulative to the economy. But I asked what the agenda was and nobody seems to know. The good news is there actually is going to be a conference meeting, although the decision has already been made. So my question to the majority in this body is, how do you move an $800 billion package, which is larger than the entire economy of the nation of Australia, with almost no transparency, no accountability, and a conference committee that's already been pre-ordained what they're going to report out some time tonight or tomorrow? Somehow that strikes me as a bad thing for democracy, a bad thing for the House and the Senate, and a bad deal for the American people. So if I were a conferee, and there was a real conference I would ask questions, how does electricity decoupling really work? Why should we ask our consumers to use less electricity and pay for more the electricity that they use? Why is that a good thing? And why was it put in a bill that we haven't had a hearing on and most of the Members of the body on both sides of the aisle don't even know what the concept of electricity decoupling is. So I guess, Mr. Speaker, I will end up by saying I wish that we ran the whole House like Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall run the Science Committee, where there really is cooperation, there really is bipartisanship, and the result is that bills come to the floor that both sides can support.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That's correct.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The fact that we're honoring this fine gentleman today does not mean that he can rest on his laurels. I fully expect within the month to be totally engaged on opposite sides in the public health care debate as he tries to fulfill one of his lifetime obligations of moving some sort of a national health care bill. I believe in a more market-oriented, private sector approach. So, while part of me says I wish he would go ahead and retire, the better part of me says we want you here, Chairman Dingell. We want you engaged in the debate. We want you giving your ideas on what you think is right for the American people, just like you've been doing for the last 53-years-and-some-odd days, because on your best day you make this body and our country a better body and a better country, and even on your worst day, you improve the atmosphere and improve the prospects for a brighter future for our people of the United States of America. God bless you.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Thank you, Congressman Upton. Mr. Speaker, we're here today to honor one of the true lions of the Congress. I feel like since this is the third time I've made this type of a speech that I'm at a funeral, except for the fact that our honoree is not only alive, but he's still kicking and has lots of life left to give to his constituency and to the Congress and certainly to the committee that he's served as chairman for so many years in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I've known John Dingell in some ways since 1985 when I got sworn in as a freshman Member. I've served on the committee that he was the chairman of since 1987. I've served 22 years on the committee, and for the last 17 years, in some shape, form or fashion, I have sat beside him as subcommittee chairman, as ranking member, as full committee chairman, as ranking member of the full committee, and now again as ranking member with he as chairman emeritus. There is a public side of John Dingell, and there is a private side of John Dingell. We have numerous stories about the public side of John Dingell, the powerful, gruff chairman. You know, some of the private sides of John Dingell, much less public but just as important, when I had my heart attack 3 years ago, John Dingell is one of the people that called and gave me solace and counsel and checked on my wife and made sure that she was okay. When Terri and I had our son 3 years ago, John and Debbie called and asked what kind of a gift, and knowing of their association with the auto industry, I thought a Cadillac Escalade might be in order. But what we got were car seats, a car seat for Washington and a car seat for Texas, very practical gift, also within the House ethics rules and also very thoughtful. One of the things that has not been said that I'm aware of is that in spite of the many legislative achievements, the Clean Water Act, Safe Water Drinking Act, the Clean Air Act Amendments, a lead role in the original Clean Air Act, John Dingell is a very humble man. He has not asked that his name be put on any of that legislation. When I chaired the energy conference report that later became the Energy Policy Act of 2005, I wanted my name on the bill and Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman and Congressman Dingell. And so I went to Mr. Dingell. I said, Let's put your name on the bill; we will call it the Barton-Domenici-Dingell-Bingaman bill. And he said, no, he didn't want his name on the bill. I said, Is it because it's too controversial? He said, No, I don't believe that a man should be that presumptuous. And I may be wrong, but I'm not aware of any piece of legislation that is called the Dingell bill because he just wants to get the job done. He's not interested in personal memorials. As I've said numerous times, when they write the history of the Congress, of the 20,000 men and women who have had the honor to call themselves U.S. representatives, John Dingell will be one of those representatives that is highlighted. I think he's probably the most influential House Member in the history of the Congress who has not been Speaker of the House, and he could have been Speaker at some point in time. And I don't mean that as a personal attack on our current Speaker. I'm just saying the esteem that this man has been held in for over 50 years is something that we should all try to emulate, because on both sides of the aisle, he is really, really held in high esteem and is considered, as I said earlier, one of the lions, not just of this Congress but every Congress. I consider it one of the highest honors of my life that I have been able to serve with him and by him and learn from him and, on occasion, emulate him. And, Mr. Speaker, I will also say that he still has work to do. The fact that we're all honoring him with this resolution today--

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Poe). Mr. Speaker, I first want to say I support this particular bill. And I will vote for it based on Mr. Poe's recommendation. But the real reason I'm here is that I'm getting a little bit frustrated on behalf of the American people of being shut out of the process. We have this suspension bill and then three or four others from the Science Committee this afternoon. We're basically treading water because a decision was made last night by our Speaker and the majority leader in the Senate and the President to lock down the stimulus conference. The Speaker apparently has a plane trip scheduled to leave to go to Italy on Friday at 6:00 and can't be bothered with an open and transparent process on spending in the neighborhood of $800 to $900 billion to theoretically stimulate the economy. And to put that number in perspective, that is larger than the entire economy of the nation of Australia. It is 20 years worth of State spending. The State budget of the State of Texas, which I represent, is the second largest in terms of population in the country, second only to California. You would think if we were going to spend that kind of money, and it is an issue of such importance, that we would have some sort of a process around here that would have input from everybody. Well, the committee that I'm on, Energy and Commerce Committee, Chairman Waxman did hold a markup. But the Republican amendments that were accepted, most of them were stripped out when the bill came to the floor. They did allow a few Republican amendments on the bill that came to the floor. And one or two of those were accepted. It went to the Senate. The Senate has worked its will. We have come back here. And now we have a conference that has been appointed so-called, it is the ``no conference'' conference. It is not going to meet because the deal has been made. There are five Members from the House. There are five Members from the Senate. At some point in time, the two House Members, Mr. Lewis, the senior Republican on the Appropriations Committee, and Mr. Camp, the senior Republican on the Ways and Means Committee, are going to be given a report, probably just a document sheet, that says sign or don't sign, and oh, by the way, you can maybe offer minority views if you object. There is no conference going on right now. There's nothing happening. And in the case of the committee that I'm on, for the first time that I can ever tell, we don't even officially have a conferree. Now Chairman Waxman is a conferree. And he should be. But as the ranking member, I'm not a conferee nor is the Health ranking Republican, Mr. Deal, or Mr. Stearns, the ranking Republican on the Telecommunications, or Mr. Upton, the ranking member on Energy. This bill only spends $200 billion under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It's only $200 billion. But, again, there is not going to be a conference. Now I think the American people have a right to know. I think there ought to be a real conference. I think there ought to be a transparent process. I think we can take an extra day or two. If Speaker Pelosi doesn't get to leave to go to Italy until Monday or Tuesday, Italy is still going to be there. The ruins in the Forum are still going to be there. Venice is still going to be there. Pompeii is still going to be there. I'm not sure where she is going in Italy. But I just think it is wrong. Eight hundred billion dollars or $900 billion is a lot of money. There is a process. We just honored John Dingell of Michigan for the being the longest-serving Member. He believes in process. He believed in it when he was chairman. He believed in it when I became chairman of the Energy Committee. If he told me once, he told me 100 times, you have got to have regular order. You have got to have hearings. You have got to have subcommittee markups. You have got to have full committee. You have got to have markup. You have got to go to the Rules Committee. You have to make sure that the minority views are heard. And I believed him. That is one reason he has got such acclamation. So we're here doing the suspension bill. The people who are sponsors of it, bless their hearts. It is a good thing to do. But there are a lot of other things that we ought to be doing, Mr. Speaker, and we're not doing them. The American people are in the dark. We've got the ``no-conference'' conference with no Republican input from the House side. And we've got to vote it before 6:00 o'clock Friday. I think that is a tragedy. It is a disservice to the American people.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. First, let me say I rise in support of the motion to instruct. But what I really want to talk about is President Obama's call for bipartisanship. We heard it last night in his press conference; we have heard it in every major speech that he has given. And, somehow, it is just the Republicans' fault that we are not being bipartisan. Well, I have had it up to here with the rhetoric. The reality is totally different. We have before us a motion to go to conference in which not one Republican amendment was accepted on the House floor, in which there were no hearings in any of the committees in the House of Representatives, in which in the Energy and Commerce Committee of which I am the senior Republican we didn't have any hearings. We did have a markup. We got five Republican amendments accepted in the markup in committee, but three of those were stripped when the bill came to the floor. We are apparently going to have five House conferees out of 435 Members; we are going to have nobody from the Energy and Commerce Committee, nobody from the Education and Workforce Committee, nobody from the Ag Committee, nobody from Homeland Security, nobody from Veterans', nobody from Financial Services. The list goes on and on. That is not bipartisanship. I don't know what it is; but if President Obama is listening, if you really want to be bipartisan, pick up the phone and call the Speaker and say: allow the 41 percent of the House that represents the Republicans to be a part of the process. It is not bipartisan where we are presented a bill and told ``take it or leave it.'' Now, I understand that if one side has 59 percent and the other side has 41 percent, the 59 percent can win every vote; but that doesn't mean that the 41 percent has no say. And we have a bill somewhere between $820 billion and $850 billion, which is more than the entire economy of the country of Australia, which is 20 years of state spending of the State of Texas, which is equal to almost the entire discretionary budget of United States of America, and we are going to pass it after a floor debate 2 weeks ago of 3 to 4 hours, and I don't know how many hours of debate we are going to have today and tomorrow, but it is 3 or 4 hours. Now, that to me is shameful. The regular appropriation process, which Mr. Obey is the chairman of, they have 12 subcommittees; they have hearings in every subcommittee; they have markup in every subcommittee. They take each bill to the full committee and have a markup. The bills, theoretically, come to the floor separately and under an open rule where any Member of the House can stand up and offer an amendment. This process is a dictatorship. I could talk about the substance of the bill, but at least know, the American people, that the process that we are spending $800 billion to $900 billion is a closed system. I strongly oppose it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, Dr. Gingrey of Georgia.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am going to be magnanimous and give the gentleman 1 additional minute.