Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I've got a parliamentary inquiry. I don't know how to address this. If the Chair would advise, then I will address it in the appropriate way.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Then I would ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes, equally divided, to engage in a dialogue with the distinguished Member from Virginia who's controlling the time on the majority side.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have just been informed that my friends on the majority side want to go to the White House for the SCHIP signing ceremony and we have to finish the debate in the next 10 minutes. What does ``finish the debate'' mean? Actually call for a rollcall vote in the next 10 minutes, or actually have the vote finished in the next 10 minutes?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I give the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Can I inquire as to the time remaining on each side, please, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I'd like to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, Mr. Terry of Nebraska.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished former ranking member of the Ag Committee and the former chairman of that committee, Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, Mr. Stearns of Florida.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I'd like to give 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I speak, I want to ask a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. In the previous voice vote, the Speaker said the ``ayes'' have it. From visual inspection, it appeared that there were more ``no'' Congressmen on the floor than ``aye'' Congressmen. My parliamentary inquiry is: Under the rules of the House, is it possible to ask for a show of hands without violating House rules or without asking for unanimous consent?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Further parliamentary inquiry. Since when has it been the rules of the House that the minority cannot ask a unanimous consent request? When did that rule get changed? We're fixing to have a real problem here. Now the majority can object to unanimous consent, but I at least have the right to offer a unanimous consent request.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If a Member on the floor at the time the Chair calls the question feels the Chair called the question erroneously, then that Member would be required to ask for a rollcall vote. Is that your remedy?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Let me start out by stating that the majority is trying to fix a problem that I do not think really exists. We have sent out 33 million coupons: 22 million of those coupons have been redeemed, and 11 million coupons are outstanding. The outstanding coupons are being redeemed, I think, by about 500,000 a week, something like that. In my opinion, you could keep the hard date and not have a problem, but if you think there is a problem, it is not from lack of money. We have appropriated $1.3 billion. About half of that is still in the Treasury, but as I pointed out before, it cannot be released for additional coupons because they assume that 100 percent of the coupons are going to be redeemed. So what this means is the redemption rate is only about 52 percent. Once you send out a coupon, you have to wait for 90 days until it is either redeemed or until it expires before you can release an additional coupon. If we really, really think that we need to do something, the simple thing to do is not appropriate but to authorize $250 million at $40 a coupon box. That is $240 million. You have authorized enough money to send out coupons, however many you can send, to these 6.5 million Nielsen household families that my good friend from Virginia talks about. Yet the majority has chosen not to do that. They have insisted that we have to delay the program. So point one is: We have 33 million coupons that have been sent out. Twenty-two million have been redeemed. Eleven million are outstanding. If you want to eliminate the line, you authorize another $250 million so you can send out the other coupons. You could also just say you do not need a coupon. As my good friend from Nebraska has pointed out, it is not the lack of converter boxes. You can go to any electronic store in America and find the converter box. We could just say, ``If you have not gotten a converter box, go get one.'' There is no means test. Under the law, every household in America is entitled to two converter boxes. Go get them. Pay for them. Send us the receipt. The Treasury will pay you your money. You could do that. My good friend talks about the technical problems. Well, I am going to educate the country right now on the technical problems. Here is how to do it: First, get the converter box. Second, take it out of the box. Third, plug it in. Fourth, hook it up by cable to your TV set or to your antenna. Fifth, turn it on. Sixth, if you have a remote control, hit the scan button. Seventh, make sure that you tune your TV to channel 3. What is technical about that? It works. Eighth, if you do all of that and it does not work, call whomever you bought the converter box from. They will tell you, and they will walk you through it. If you are a senior citizen, in most States, you can dial 211, and they will even send somebody out to your house to make sure that it is plugged in, that it is hooked up, that it is turned on, that it is on channel 3, and that you hit the scan button. Now, that is not all that high-tech. If a Texas Aggie like me can understand it, I think the country can understand it. Next, I want to point out, even though we are delaying this until June 12 if this bill becomes law, according to the acting chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, 61 percent of the television stations in America are going to go ahead and convert to digital. One hundred forty-three television stations already have converted, and in those areas where they have converted, I am not aware that there has been a huge problem. As Cliff Stearns pointed out earlier in the rules debate, they did a pilot program down in North Carolina, and it was 99 percent effective. Regarding the time that they converted over, they had a handful of concerns down there to see if it would work. So we have a situation here where we have had a hard date on the books since September of 2005. That hard date is February 17. Every broadcaster in America is ready to go; 143 three stations have already converted. Up to 61 percent of the remaining 1,000-some-odd stations say they are probably going to convert. The acting chairman says that, before June 12, probably 90 percent will. Now, to be fair, Acting Chairman Cox does say he supports the legislation that Mr. Boucher is bringing to the floor. He does support the delay. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. How about my friends on the majority?

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I inquire on the time remaining?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am going to yield my last potent 45 seconds to a distinguished member of the committee, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, to close.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Congressman McClintock.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, my admiration for the majority leader knows no bounds. Mr. Hoyer is a great man, and he is an institutionalist, and he was personally involved in the negotiations of the last Congress who tried to get a compromise. But sometimes he doesn't tell the entire facts of the matter. So I want to just point out a few things that our distinguished majority leader failed to mention. Right now in America, the SCHIP law that we're operating under is a Barton-Deal bill--Mr. Deal and myself, two Republicans--that extends the existing program. And to Mr. Hoyer's credit and Ms. Pelosi's credit, they passed that extension in the last Congress when we couldn't get a political compromise. Under current law, if you're low income, below 200 percent of poverty, your children are covered under Medicaid 100 percent, 100 percent. If you're a working family that's under 200 percent of the Federal poverty limit, you're automatically covered. In some States, they go up to 250 percent of poverty, and in some States they have asked for waivers to go even higher than that. I think Mr. Pallone's State of New Jersey may be at 300 percent. I think the State of New York may be at 300 percent. So it is a misnomer to say that there are all of these children out there that don't have health insurance. There are some. Now, the bill before us today really doesn't have an income test. It officially takes it to 300 percent of poverty but allows the States to ask for waivers and do what are called income disregards, which basically means you could have families at 400 or 500 percent of poverty and if that State disregards their income, they can be covered. That was admitted on the House floor in last year's debate, and that provision is unchanged in the bill before us. Now, President Obama has already scheduled a signing ceremony so there is no real suspense about whether this bill is going to pass with a Democrat majority of 258 votes and a Republican minority of 178 votes, we're pretty sure that this bill is going to prevail. But the record should show that low-income children are covered, that children up to 200 percent of poverty are covered, and in some states it goes to 250 percent. This debate is about raising the level. This debate is about do we want a children's health insurance program that covers every child in America with State and Federal dollars regardless of their ability to pay; do we want to freeze out the private sector for health insurance. That's what this debate is about. Republicans are for children's health insurance. Republicans do believe, though, that we should target the help to those families that have less ability to help themselves. And on the question of citizen verification, since we didn't have a legislative hearing, I'm not sure what the verification measurement is, but I think it's personal affirmation.