Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, 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 Speaker, on the next bill, the Consumer Product Safety Commission reauthorization bill, I will be standing in this very spot saying extremely complimentary things about Chairman Dingell, the process that he has used and that Speaker Pelosi has used to bring the Consumer Product Safety Commission reauthorization bill to the floor of the House of Representatives. But that's the next bill. On this bill, I must say I still have the greatest personal respect for our distinguished chairman, Mr. Dingell, and our subcommittee chairman, Mr. Pallone, but I cannot say anything kind about the product of the legislation that they're bringing to the body today. At the beginning of this Congress, Madam Speaker, our Speaker for the entire full House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, ``Bills should generally come to floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives.'' That's not the case with this bill, Madam Speaker. The final product that's before us was given to the minority at about 1:05 this afternoon, which is approximately 3 hours and 5 minutes ago. We did have a committee markup. We did have some process. We did have some hearings in Mr. Pallone's subcommittee. We did have a legislative hearing on the bill, but once that was concluded, the bill disappeared into a sinkhole, only to reemerge today as a suspension bill. As you know, Madam Speaker, suspensions are theoretically about noncontroversial items in which there is little controversy and no disagreement between Members of the body on either side of the aisle. It's not the case on this bill, Madam Speaker. This bill will cost jobs in the agricultural sector. This bill has been so controversial that we, as I said earlier, didn't even get a work product until early this afternoon. On the substance of the bill, I disagree with the central premise, that the Food and Drug Administration should have the authority under this bill that actually certifies that tobacco is a responsible product. Isn't that an ironic thing? This bill is, in my opinion, a marketing allocation bill more than it is a regulation bill. The FDA does not have the resources to do this new responsibility. The FDA is not the tobacco police. The FDA should not be responsible for going into every convenience store and grocery store and tobacco shop in America making sure that the tobacco products are sold exactly as required. I could go on and on. I could quote Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Pallone and Chairman Waxman of the Government Reform Committee where in a letter they said back in January about how short the FDA was of resources. I'm not going to do that. I might put it in the Record, but I won't quote them at this time. The FDA has only increased its total number of employees in the last decade by 646. Its appropriations in adjusted dollars is about $300 million less than the inflation-adjusted dollars that the FDA says it needs. Yet we're going to give the FDA another huge responsibility and not give them the resources to do the work that the bill says they should do. If we really need to do more to restrict advertising for tobacco products or to prevent marketing to children, we can do that by going to other agencies that have that responsibility in the marketplace right now. If there should be more enforcement to prevent children from buying cigarettes because they're under age, we should bring a bill to the floor that would strengthen the Synar amendment, a former congressman from Oklahoma and a former member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We could certainly encourage States to actually use their master settlement agreement funds to do things like the smoking cessation programs. It's ironic to me that less than 30 percent of the funds that have been given to the States under the master settlement agreement are being used for anti-smoking campaigns. That would be one area where I think both sides of the aisle, Republicans and the Democrats, could have bipartisan agreement. In short, Madam Speaker, what we don't need is creating at the FDA a new, Draconian bureaucracy since they're already overburdened and have more work than they know what to do with. I do agree that cigarettes are bad for people's health. I have never smoked a cigarette. I don't allow smoking in my office. I don't take any kind of campaign funds from tobacco companies. So I do practice what I preach, Madam Speaker, but I do not believe that this bill addresses the underlying problem in a satisfactory way. And for that purpose, I will strongly urge a ``no'' vote--again, since this is a suspension bill which on process alone, it shouldn't be but it is--it only takes one-third vote to defeat the bill. That would be the perfect solution to this bill, would be to send it to the boneyard of other suspension bills that shouldn't be on the suspension calendar in the first place. Madam Speaker, it is getting a little tiresome to keep saying here we go again, but here we go again. Once again we come to the House floor to consider a major piece of legislation under suspension of the rules. Traditionally, we suspend the normal rules for things like naming post offices and other noncontroversial bills. For those watching on C-SPAN, suspension of the rules means limited debate and no amendments. We all remember that Speaker Pelosi told us that--and I'm quoting here--``bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives.'' The reality has been different. Promise made, promise unmade. Madam Speaker, this bill is hardly ordinary. Honestly noncontroversial bills do not require committee mark-ups that stretch over multiple days. Noncontroversial bills do not contain billion- dollar tax hikes. Noncontroversial bills do not cause working people to lose their jobs or their farms. In fact, the provisions of the bill were so controversial that the majority could not even produce a bill to be seen in public until this morning because they couldn't agree among themselves about what should be in it. Madam Speaker, handling legislation of this importance in this way is not the open and transparent process that was promised. It is the opposite. Now, on the substance of the bill, I disagree with the central premise of the bill that the Food and Drug Administration should be given this responsibility. The FDA is tasked with protecting the safety of the food we eat, and ensuring the drugs we take, and the medical devices we use are safe and effective. It is an agency that we have held numerous hearings on and have come to a bipartisan conclusion that the agency lacks sufficient resources to do its current mission. Congress affirmed that conclusion when we appropriated an additional $150 million in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the FDA. Speaker, the FDA is still the wrong agency, at the wrong time, to become the tobacco police. They need to focus on their current mission. Here's what Chairman Dingell, Chairman Pallone and Chairman Waxman said about the current problem in a January 23, 2008 letter to FDA: Experts from every affected sector agree that this desperate funding situation has rendered FDA unable to protect the American public from even the most basic threats, including contaminated food, tainted and dangerous drugs, and faulty medical devices. According to FDA's own Science Board . . . American lives are now at risk. FDA has plenty to do just to save those lives that are at risk. We, the Congress, have passed 125 laws over the last 20 years that directly impact FDA's regulatory responsibilities, yet our appropriated resources to the agency have not kept pace. During the same time period, FDA has only increased its total number of employees by 646 people; and its appropriations are about $300 million less now in inflation-adjusted dollars. We're pretty good at telling FDA what to do and how to do it, but not so good at paying for what we order. And here we go again. Instead of making it possible for FDA to do the jobs we've already given it, we are here today adding new regulatory responsibilities that dwarf any of those given to the FDA in the past two decades. If we need to do more to restrict advertising or prevent marketing to children, we can find the right agency to do that. If there should be more enforcement to prevent children from buying cigarettes, we can strengthen the Synar amendment. The best way to reduce smoking is for States to use more of their Master Settlement Agreement funds on things like smoking cessation products. So let's talk about encouraging States to use more of their MSA funds for this purpose. These are problems we can solve without creating a new, draconian bureaucracy at an already over-burdened agency that Members on both sides of the aisle agree needs to do a much better job at conducting its current mission. Cigarettes are bad for people's health, period. Madam Speaker, if people believe there should be an increased Federal role in tobacco regulation, we can do better than this deceptive process and we can do better than this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and send a message that promises are meant to be kept. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield 1 minute to our distinguished minority leader from the Buckeye State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the committee, for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished deputy whip from the great State of Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I now want to yield to the distinguished tri- captain of the victorious congressional Republican baseball team, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), 1 minute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I wish to recognize a distinguished Member from the great State of North Carolina, a great former professional quarterback, member of the Democratic baseball team, Mr. Shuler, for 1 minute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, can I inquire as to the time on each side that is remaining, please.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, first let me say how delighted I am to see my good friend Bobby Rush back on the floor. We have missed him, but in his recovery from his situation, he has been a strong conferee. He hasn't known how strong he has been, I am sure, but he has been a stalwart in bringing this conference report to the floor, and we are delighted he is on the floor to taste the fruits of victory, which is well deserved because of his leadership on this issue at the subcommittee and on the conference. Madam Speaker, we have a rare thing before us. We have a conference report that has actually gone through the regular process. I want to commend my good friend, John Dingell of Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for his extremely positive leadership on this issue. I want to compliment all of the House conferees: Mr. Waxman, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Rush on the majority side, and Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Stearns on the minority side. The House conferees, under Mr. Dingell's leadership, have met numerous times at the principal level and uncounted times at the staff level. The negotiations on this conference have not been easy. They have not been simplistic. They have been tense and hard-fought. On more than one occasion I have felt like getting up and walking away. I hate to admit it, with Mr. Rush being a minister, but I have thought bad thoughts about some of the conferees. But having said that, the end product is worthy of support by everybody. This conference report shows how the House of Representatives should work. We took an issue that is not an easy issue. Chairman Dingell and Subcommittee Chairman Rush had a legislative hearing. They had a subcommittee markup. We had a full committee markup. We brought a bill to the floor. We had a motion to recommit. Mr. Dingell then got the House conferees together to make sure that we had a unified House position, and, when we couldn't, he kept bringing us together until we could. As has been pointed out, the leadership of the staffs on both sides have worked together. Under the conference chairman's leadership, Senator Inouye of Hawaii, the conference actually met. The Senate made proposals, the House responded, and vice a versa. The end result is a conference report that I believe every House conferee signed, and, as far as I know, every Senate conferee signed. So that is a rarity, Madam Speaker, but the result is going to be a bill on the suspension calendar which for once deserves to be on the suspension calendar. I fully expect to get the same sort of vote on the conference report that we got on the House bill, and I believe the House bill, that passed something like 407-0 or 407-1, I am hopeful that this bill will pass with that same margin. Now let me talk about what is actually in the bill. This is a strong bill. It gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission added authority to inspect and test children's toys. It creates for the first time a national laboratory that is headed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It gives States the right to set up independent laboratories in the State or to do third-party testing of products. It sets the toughest lead standards in the world for products that are going to be used by our children. Because of Senator Stevens' leadership in the other body, it bans three-wheel ATVs from the American market. These insidious products are products that have begun to creep back into the market after the lapse of the consent agreement between the industry and the Justice Department that this body helped negotiate when I was a junior Member 15 or 20 years ago. It requires a rulemaking for four-wheel ATVs. On a chemical compound called phthalates, it outlaws three specific phthalates that there is adequate evidence that they might be harmful in children's products. It sets up a science-based study on three other phthalates that gives the CPSC the authority to also outlaw them if the science shows that they should be. But it does also require that there be real science, that we don't ban or outlaw products on no science or bad science. There has to be reputable science that is peer-reviewed. I want to commend Mr. Waxman, who was one of the House conferees. He and I disagreed on a number of issues, but we also agreed that we should try to find compromise. And we did; the bill reflects that. One of the main reasons that we have a conference report is because Chairman Waxman was willing to compromise, and I want to compliment him for doing that. I could go on and on, Madam Speaker, and I will during the course of the debate, but let me simply say that this bill represents the Congress at its best. It represents a tough issue where we used the process, where we gave everybody a voice. Chairman Dingell has been exemplary in allowing the minority to participate and to provide input and ideas. This is not the perfect bill that I would have had if I had been the only conferee. But it is a very, very good bill. It is a strong bill. It will protect America's children, it is worthy of support, and I hope that every Member this body votes in the affirmative for the bill later this afternoon. Madam Speaker, with thanks, I want to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, 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 Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to commend my good friend, Mr. Rush, for his efforts; and I see that we have a distinguished visitor from the other body. We are glad to have Senator Durbin on the floor. With that, I want to yield 4 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee and a conferee, Mr. Stearns of Florida. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I think we've seen in the debate today that when the Congress does decide to work in a cooperative spirit, the end product is a product that's worthy of support by all Members on both sides of the aisle, in most cases regardless of their philosophical affiliation. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is a necessary and vital part of our effort here in the United States to make sure that the products that are sold to the American public are the safest in the world. The emphasis on this bill, in addition to reauthorizing the Consumer Product Safety Commission, has really been to beef up the standards and the enforcement authority and the technical ability of the CPSC for children's toys and children's products. As Congresswoman Schakowsky pointed out, there are some very specific things in this bill that should provide over the years, as it is implemented, the prohibition of some of the unwanted tragedies that we unfortunately have seen in the past, and in her case on the crib issue that she's been so diligent in bringing forward. We increase the number of commissioners; we increase the budget of the commission; we create a new laboratory; we in certain cases ban certain products, specifically three-wheel ATVs that are coming into the country; we require a study on four-wheel ATVs. As we have said on numerous occasions, for the first time we prohibit certain phthalates from being used in children's products, and we require a science-based study on three other phthalates. We have the toughest standard for lead in the world today. By any definition, this is a strong bill. It is a pro-consumer bill. But yet it is also a bill that will allow the manufacturers of children's products to have the ability to manufacture in a safe way and to market in a safe way these products to the American public. Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to say something about the distinguished chairman of the committee, Chairman Dingell. I am not a person who normally initially is willing to compromise. I don't think if you ask a Member of this body who's been in it very long who knows me does Joe Barton change his mind very often, I think the answer you would get is ``not frequently.'' But it became apparent as we went to conference with the Senate that compromise was going to be a necessity. On the issue of phthalates, being a registered professional engineer, I was not a believer that we should automatically ban the number of phthalates that the other body's bill did and I was not somebody who was really seriously interested in finding a compromise. My position was the House position, which was we don't do single products. We should leave that up--if the science shows it should be banned later on, so be it. Chairman Dingell came to me and said, ``You're going to have to take another look at that.'' And I said, ``Mr. Chairman, I don't want to. I don't think we need to take another look at it.'' And he said, ``Joe, I really hope that you will find it in your heart to really study this phthalate issue.'' And because of my respect for John Dingell, I promised him that I would do that. And I spent the next week, both at the staff level and in phone conversations, with the leading scientists in the United States that actually manufacture and distribute the product, studying that issue. And as a consequence of that, since I am an engineer, if the facts say something, you've got to look at the facts. And I was convinced, based on those conversations from the staff on the minority side and some of the scientists that there was some doubt and there was some reason on certain of the phthalates, that there should be a prohibition. And we put forward a proposal from the minority side to Chairman Dingell. He massaged it. He put forward a position as a conference. It was not accepted, but it was a starting point for negotiations, and Congresswoman DeGette got into the discussion. She went to Mr. Waxman. Mr. Waxman went to the other body, to Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein, and the result is we actually have a conference report that is a good compromise. So I want to commend all of those, but I especially want to commend John Dingell because he is the dean of the House. He has served in this body over half a century, and if he had not had the wisdom and the leadership to say that you had to try to find a compromise, we wouldn't be here. We would, on my side, be rallying support to sustain a Presidential veto, and on the majority side, be trying to make sure that this got the two-thirds vote. So, Madam Speaker and Members of the body, I have the utmost admiration for Chairman Dingell, and I have the utmost respect for the institution, of the process of the House of Representatives, and that shows in this bill. Vote for the conference report. I yield back my time.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, I again want to talk about some of the specifics in the legislation. The bill before us would give the Commission new tools, such as greater authority to expedite recalls; would give the Commission the authority to strengthen reporting requirements to facilitate the identification of the origin of the problems that arise in the supply chain. We also give the Commission expanded authority to better monitor and regulate the tremendous increase in the number of products that we import from overseas. The Commission, for the first time, has got explicit authority to consult with United States Customs and Border Protection Service to better identify dangerous products before they enter the country. The bill, as I have said earlier, also provides national uniform standards for many children's products, rather than relying on a patchwork of disparate State and local rules. As has been pointed out, the bill before us has the toughest standard on lead, which is basically no lead in children's products as they come into the national market, whether they are manufactured here in the United States or overseas. There is a concern on some part about the implementation for the schedule for manufacturers to comply with this new lead requirement, but I am confident that they have the resources to do so and will do so. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, I hope I can get that quote and frame it, that I was right. It is good to know that I have been right about something in this Congress. I will take that home and show it to my family and my children, and maybe they will appreciate me a little bit more. I want to keep going through some of the substance on the conference report, Madam Speaker. I want to talk now, in this little segment, about the chemical compound called phthalates. Phthalates are the product, compound that are used in plastics to make them soft. There has been some evidence in the last several years that, in large quantities, in certain products, if a child were to ingest them, that it could cause problems in the development of that child in their teenage years. The science is uncertain, but there is growing concern. Some States have begun to ban these products. The European Union has banned certain of these phthalates and, as a result, in the other body, the Senate bill had a prohibition based on a California standard on a large number of these particular compounds. I didn't believe then, and I am still uncertain whether it is necessary to specifically ban these compounds because they have been used in products for a large number of years and there is no known instance of any kind of a phthalate poisoning or phthalate deformity in humans. Having said that, when Congresswoman Diana DeGette came to my office unannounced as I was trying to gather support to sustain a veto of what I thought would be a different bill, I did agree to work with Mr. Waxman and Senator Boxer in the other body and come up with a compromise. I must also say that Chairman Dingell was instrumental in that, as he counseled me, in only the way that Chairman Dingell can, about the need for bipartisan compromise. The result is the bill before us where three specific phthalates are banned outright, and another three are temporarily prohibited while we do a comprehensive scientific study. That is the essence of compromise.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 1 minute. And I do want to give, as I said, in the conference, Congresswoman DeGette should get the Henry Kissinger award for diplomacy because she actually was apparently shuttling between my office, Chairman Dingell's office, Mr. Waxman's office and maybe even Congresswoman Schakowsky's office. That was a tremendous amount of effort on her part, and it does show that when there is trust and bipartisan willingness to cooperate and, as Lyndon Johnson, the great former President and Member of this body once said, ``There is nothing that is not compromisable.'' And certainly, this conference report shows that that is a true statement. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, in previous comments I have thanked the committee staffs. On this occasion, I want to thank some of our friends at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I want to thank Cheri Falvey, who is general counsel; Gib Mullan, who is the director of compliance; Lowell Martin, the deputy general counsel; Quin Dodd, chief of staff to Acting Chairman Nord; Jack Horner, director of congressional relations. They've all worked very hard on this legislation. We also want to thank some of our hearing witnesses: Dr. Marilyn Wind, who is a pharmacologist who testified before the other body; Dr. Michael Babich, a chemist, who testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee. Some of our database presenters were Pat Weddle, who is director of IT services, and DeWayne Ray, deputy CIO. Some of the laboratory people who talked to us about how to detect lead: Dr. Joel Recht. And finally some of the staff, some of the Commission staffers who worked with us on the budget numbers: Mr. Ed Quist, who is the director of financial management of CPSC; and N.J. Scheers, director of planning and budget. Those are some of the staff people in the CPSC and the witnesses who helped us prepare this legislation. We should commend them for their efforts. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, could I inquire as to the time on each side.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Speaker, as we go through the debate this afternoon, I will mention some of the specifics in the bill. I would like to point out that the bill before us does have Federal preemptions so that there is one Federal standard and there is one agency to enforce that standard with regards to the safety of children's products, and that is the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This is important to note, because if we didn't have that, you could have each of the 50 States setting different standards; you could have a conglomeration of rules that would make it very difficult for interstate commerce. So one of the compromises in the bill is that there is Federal preemption, that there is one standard for all the States, and I am very pleased that that is in the bill. I would also like to point out that the pending bill gives the Commission new authority, gives the Commission new resources, increases the number of commissioners from three to five, and, as I have already pointed out, does create a CPSC testing laboratory so that our children's toys will be tested in the laboratory before they are tested by our children on the living room floors of America. I would also like to compliment the staffs on both sides, as has already been done by full committee Chairman Dingell and subcommittee Chairman Rush. But on the Democratic staff, Consuela Washington actually I think served as the key that kept all of the staffs working together, and her patience was just extraordinary. She was even patient with members like me, and I appreciate that tremendously. Judith Bailey, Christian Fjeld, Andrew Woelfling, Valerie Baron all worked very, very hard on the majority side at the staff level. On the minority side, I am very proud of Will Carty, Shannon Weinberg, Brian McCullough, Chad Grant, Jerry Couri, and even our interns, Beth Manzullo, and John Hammond had some input into the work product, and I want to commend them, especially this past weekend where they worked both Saturday and Sunday so this conference report could come to the floor today. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, we are increasing the supply of time. I will take 15 minutes right now.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my colleague from Georgia for his courtesy. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, from the great State of Texas, the MVP Republican of last week's thrilling 11-10 baseball victory, Mr. Brady.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, once again I am going to ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 minutes for debate purposes only, equally divided between the majority and minority. I still have at least six speakers.