Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds just to point out that the subregulatory deadline that Mr. Emanuel referred to requires States to show a good-faith effort to cover 95 percent of those children below 200 percent of poverty before they cover children above 250 percent of poverty. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 30 of my seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) who is one of the negotiators of an attempt at a compromise.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to compliment Congresswoman Lowey of New York for working to include the 60 percent fix for the rehabilitation hospitals. I wasn't aware that that was in the bill. I'm very pleased that that is. I would like to, I guess, compliment my friend from California, Chairman Stark, for at least agreeing that this bill is worthy of coming to the floor. I would like to point out that the whole purpose of SCHIP is to cover low- and moderate-income kids. That was the original intent. There are many of us on this side of the aisle that still think that should be the intent. If you want to go to some of the larger numbers of coverage of children that are currently not covered, you have to go above 250 and, in some cases, above 300 percent of poverty. You also are covering right now six to 700,000 adults. There are those like myself that don't think adults need to be covered by SCHIP because those same adults can be covered by Medicaid, which is the coverage for low-income Americans, regardless of how old they are. I would like to point out the obvious. When you're in the minority, the only way you can get anything passed is to work with the majority. That's self-evident. When you're in the majority you can pass things in the House just by yourself, but if you want them to become law, you normally have to work with the minority. And I hope this debate on SCHIP has shown people on both sides of the aisle that we should be trying to legislate and work together instead of scoring political points for one particular side. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am the only speaker remaining for my portion of the time, so I am prepared to close.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I continue to reserve my time.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And of the 5 minutes I still control, I want to yield two of those minutes to the new ranking member of the Consumer Protection and Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Whitfield.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. May I inquire as to the time I have remaining, Madam Speaker?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the full committee, Dr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. Madam Speaker, I want to start off by congratulating Chairman John Dingell. I have with me today's Congress Daily, one of the news periodicals that tracks what we do. And on page 7 the headline is ``House Panel Easily Passes Consumer Safety Legislation.'' It goes on to say that Dingell said he plans to approach the Speaker and ask her to put the bill on the Suspension Calendar because it passed committee 51-0, and in the next paragraph it says that a leadership aide said it is unlikely that the bill could come to the floor before Congress adjourns for the year. Well, I just want to congratulate the chairman for going to Speaker Pelosi and getting her to agree to put this bill on the floor before we go home because this bill shows how the Congress should work. It didn't pass 51-0 because of serendipity. It passed 51-0 yesterday in the Energy and Commerce Committee because staffs on both sides of the aisle of both the full committee and the subcommittee met for countless hours to negotiate the many compromises necessary to put the bill together. I want to especially compliment Consuela Washington, the majority counsel, Chairman Dingell's counsel, who has worked so hard on this bill. If President Washington were still alive today, he would be very proud of her for the work that she's done because she has not only had to work with the minority staffers and members, she has also had to diligently work with the majority staffers and members as sometimes each side was pulling her in different directions. It's good to know that she's all in one piece and doing well. This bill will strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This bill will create a state-of-the-art testing laboratory to test the products and the toys that we sell to the American public. This bill will enhance the recall ability of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This bill will expand the number of commissioners so that we have a full commission again. This bill increases the fines that the Consumer Product Safety Commission can levy against recalcitrant companies that sell defective products. And this bill has the toughest lead standard in the world for products. I wish it were my line, but it's not. Chairman Rush's line on the lead standard, in response to an amendment in committee to make it even tougher, said that God himself at Mount Horeb where He gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, that may have been the only holy ground in the world that would have met this standard. I thought that was just priceless in terms of trying to put in context how tough this standard is that the Lord Himself would have difficulty meeting the standard in the bill. So this is a good work product. It was done the right way. Negotiations with the stakeholders, negotiations with members, negotiations with the staff; an open markup at subcommittee; adequate time between subcommittee and full committee; a manager's amendment that was circulated so all members had a chance to see it; a full committee markup that lasted 2 days; numerous amendments that were offered, some withdrawn, some accepted, some modified. And the result was a 51-0 vote that occurred in full committee yesterday. And then again, thanks to Chairman Dingell's ability to get things done in the House, a Suspension Calendar vote today so that Members on both sides of the aisle have an attempt to put their stamp of approval on this very important piece of legislation. I'm very proud to have played a small part in this process, and I cannot urge in stronger language that we should pass this and send it to the other body so that they may also reciprocate. I predicted at the press conference 6 weeks ago or 2 months ago that something very close to this bill will be on the President's desk. We will have a bill signing ceremony in the Oval Office or the Rose Garden on this legislation later in this Congress. So I'm very pleased to endorse it. I again thank all Members for their hard work, and a special commendation to Cliff Stearns, the former ranking member of the subcommittee, for his hard work. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield 5 minutes to the former chairman of the subcommittee and then the ranking member of the subcommittee, who is now the ranking member of the Telecommunications Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I ask unanimous consent to yield 6 of my 11 minutes to Mr. Rush for him to control.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rush and Chairman Dingell for moving this legislation, commend Ms. Schakowsky and Congressman King for their bipartisan endorsement of it. We have had some problems with the process on this bill. We didn't have a hearing on it. We didn't have a subcommittee markup, but we did have the discussions. Chairman Dingell did postpone consideration of the bill in full committee so we could have those discussions, and we certainly support the intent of the bill, and so we certainly are willing to endorse it and hope that it gets a unanimous vote. Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the Republican cosponsor of the bill, a former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers. I urge the adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of our time, also.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we don't get elected to come to Congress and be against things. As the chairman of the Energy Committee in the last Congress, I was honored to chair the conference committee which passed the most comprehensive energy bill to become law in the last 20 to 30 years, so it is with a heavy heart that I come to the floor today to oppose this particular energy bill. I don't oppose it out of spite and I don't oppose it because there is a different majority; I oppose it because of what is in it and what is not in it. Let's talk about what's not in it. There is nothing in it for coal to liquids. There is nothing in it for the domestic oil and gas industry. There is very little in it for the nuclear industry. So for all of the conventional energy sources that fuel this great Nation, this is basically a no-energy bill. We are not a have-not Nation in terms of energy. We have the ability, if we wish to, to be close to self-sufficient in energy production for our own consumption in this Nation. Hypothetically, this bill may do something to reduce the amount of oil that we import, but only hypothetically. We use about 12 million barrels of oil per day that is converted to gasoline, and my guess is, in the year 2020, we are going to use more than 12 million barrels of oil a day to convert to gasoline and diesel fuel. So while it will certainly save some energy, because of the growth, I would argue that we will probably end up using as much imported oil as we do today. What this bill really is is a recipe for recession. Why do I say that? The cost of fuel is going to go up if this bill does what it is supposed to do, and that is going to be an incentive for recession. The cost of building our homes is going to go up because of all of the new building code restrictions for so-called green buildings in this bill. The cost of electricity is going to go up. The cost of manufacturing our automobiles and our trucks is going to go up. In 1966, my father's Ford Fairlane 500 got 17 miles to the gallon. It cost about $4,000 in 1966 dollars. That equivalent vehicle today would cost, in the order of magnitude, $25,000. The vehicles that are going to be made to meet this 35-mile-per-gallon standard in the year 2020 are probably going to cost, in order of magnitude, $10,000 to $15,000 more than they do today. That is a recipe for recession. The cost of appliances is going to go up because of all of the new efficiency standards we are putting in for appliances. And even the cost of light bulbs is going to go up. The light bulbs that light this Chamber right now will be illegal when this bill becomes completely implemented. The incandescent light bulb that you can get for 90 cents or 50 cents at Wal-Mart is going to be outlawed. You will have to pay $8 to $10 for these new fancy light bulbs. That is a cause for recession. So what happens when all of these costs go up, Mr. Speaker? Jobs go down. Jobs in our real estate and home construction building are going to go down. Jobs in manufacturing are going to go down. Jobs in our automobile assembly industry are going to go down. Jobs in retail sales are going to go down. Costs are going to go up and jobs are going to go down. And the shame of it is that we could have passed an energy bill in this Congress that we could have all voted for. We could have put some of the things that are in this bill. We are not opposed to some increase in CAFE. We could have had an agreement on CAFE that balanced an increase in supply perhaps by drilling in ANWR so we get more oil production domestically, we get some energy conservation domestically. That is a doable deal. We could have done a coal-to-liquids title in this bill. Vote ``no'' on the bill.

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. Speaker, I only have myself to close, perhaps one other speaker who is in the cloakroom, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the leading experts in the Congress on the theory of peak oil, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland. (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)