Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

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 another distinguished member of the committee, the winning pitcher of the Republican baseball team, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, it's interesting how different people can see the same set of circumstances and come to totally different conclusions. In the last Congress, we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on a bipartisan basis. There were open markups in the House and the Senate. There was an open conference committee that was televised in some cases. We had, I believe, a majority of the Democrats vote for that bill on the House floor, a majority of the Democrats in the Senate, and obviously almost all the Republicans in both bodies. It was the most comprehensive energy bill to be signed into law in probably the last 30 or 40 years. Many of the things in that bill are going to be undone if and when this bill passes and the President signs it, which he is expected to do so. I understand the consequences of elections. I understand there is a new majority. I do not understand how what made sense 2 years ago doesn't make sense today. Let's take the issue of fuel economy standards. If there is a crown jewel in this bill, it apparently is that we're going to raise CAFE standards significantly for the first time in 30 years. On the surface, that may appear to be a good thing, but let me point out a few things. There are over 350 models of automobiles and trucks that are currently available for sale to the American public. There are only eight vehicles that get 35 miles to the gallon. They are the Honda Fit, the Honda Civic, the Honda Civic Hybrid, the Toyota Yaris, both manual and automatic, Toyota Corolla, Toyota Camry Hybrid, and the Toyota Prius. That's it. Now, let's look at the top eight selling vehicles that the American public have bought so far this year. Number one is the Ford F-series pickup. Number two is the Chevrolet Silverado pickup. Number three is the Toyota Camry, not the Camry Hybrid. Number four is the Dodge Ram pickup. Number five is the Honda Accord. Number six is the Toyota Corolla. Number seven is the Honda Civic. Number eight is the Nissan Altima. Only two or three of those get 35 miles to the gallon. I will stipulate, as smart as our engineers in Detroit are, it is going to be very, very difficult, if not impossible, for the Ford F- series pickups, the Chevy Silverado and the Dodge Ram pickup to get 35 miles to the gallon by the year 2020. There are vehicles that meet the standard. Some of those make the top list of sales, but three of the top four do not. I will stipulate by setting the standard at 35 miles to the gallon, will we improve fuel economy? Yes, we will. Will we reach the holy grail of 35 miles per gallon on a fleet average by 2020? If I had to guess, I would bet we'll be back on this floor within the next 10 years providing for an extension of that because I think it's going to be technologically very difficult, if not impossible. And I think economically it's not going to be possible at all. What the bill before us is is a mandatory conservation bill. Now, conservation in and of itself is a good thing. I won't deny that. But conservation without some supply is a bad thing, and that's what this bill is. We're preempting State and local building codes with Federal building standards for so-called ``green buildings.'' We're mandating 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels that right now the technology simply doesn't exist. Hopefully our engineers and scientists can make that happen, but what if they don't? We are also basically just changing the way that we operate in a market economy for energy in this country to the government knows the best and the government is going to tell the American people what's best for them, whether the American people like it or not. I think that's a mistake, Mr. Speaker. And for that reason, I would hope we vote against the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlewoman from Nashville, Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Alaska, former chairman of the Transportation Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Young. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I do thank my good friend, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We disagree on some policies, but we don't disagree on our love for the institution and the love for democracy. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say, as I have already said, this is not a have-not Nation, but the energy bill before us today is acting as if we are a have-not Nation. We can use the domestic resources. We can produce more energy, and yes, we can conserve energy. We can lead the world as we have led the world in the post-World War II era, but this bill is, in my opinion, a recipe for recession, and I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote. And I thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding me the additional time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rockwall, Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

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, there's a great movie from the sixties or maybe the seventies called ``Cool Hand Luke.'' Paul Newman is Cool Hand Luke, and he gets imprisoned for some minor infraction and he just doesn't conform with the regulations of the prison. And finally in exasperation the prison warden is talking to him in front of the chain gang and utters the famous line, ``What we have here is a failure to communicate.'' Well, what we have here tonight apparently is another failure to communicate. The Republicans in the House of Representatives want to reauthorize SCHIP. Some of the Republicans in the House of Representatives even want to expand SCHIP. But what we don't want to do is make SCHIP the surrogate for universal health care for children that are not in low-income or moderate-income families. We don't want to do that. And the bill before us would do that. It would cover children up to 300 percent of poverty, explicitly, which is above the median income in this country. And it would not have any substantial reform on what are called ``income disregards.'' An income disregard is, some States have said, well, we're going to disregard this amount of income or we're going to disregard that particular expense. So for all practical purposes if a State chooses to disregard income, then there is no cap, and the bill before us doesn't have reforms in that measure. The bill before us, in terms of illegal aliens, does have a paragraph that says no illegal alien can receive the benefit. It has that. But it has no enforcement. It's toothless. It's like saying don't go over 55 miles an hour or 60 miles an hour but you don't have a radar policeman to enforce the speed limit. So what we are saying and what the President of the United States is saying in his veto message is pretty straightforward. Let's continue the SCHIP program. Let's find the children that are below 200 percent of poverty, and let's get them enrolled in the program and perhaps even go as high as 250 percent or 275 percent. Let's find some way to have a real enforcement to make sure that SCHIP is for children and for children of citizens. And then let's find a way to get the adults on the program off the program. There are some States that cover more adults than children. And, again, my friends on the majority agree that that's not an appropriate thing, but they don't do anything in the bill to reform that. So when my friend from New Jersey, the distinguished subcommittee chairman, talks about there may be as many as 6 million additional children that could be covered, I very carefully listened to what he said, and I would agree with what he said because he used the words ``Medicaid'' and ``SCHIP.'' Well there are 25 million children covered under Medicaid right now. There may well be another 5 or 6 million children that are eligible for Medicaid that we need to work with on a bipartisan basis to get in Medicaid. But according to HHS, there are only 800,000 eligible for SCHIP. Even according to the CBO, there are only an additional maybe 1.3 million that would be eligible for SCHIP under the bill that the majority is putting on the floor. So I wish we wouldn't postpone this veto. I wish we would go ahead and have the veto override tonight because we will sustain the veto. And then I wish my good friend John Dingell from Michigan and Mr. Rangel from New York would work with Mr. McCrery and myself and other Members to really come together on a bipartisan basis. I would like to point out that these negotiations that Mr. Hoyer alluded to did, in fact, happen, but those negotiations were not a conference. This bill is not the result of a conference committee between the House and the Senate. The bill before us is the result of some backroom negotiations and then an effort on an ad hoc basis of some of the senior Members of the majority in this House and some Members of the other body to work with some of our junior Members who had really no official standing but did negotiate in good faith to come up with a compromise. And as Mr. Garrett pointed out, the written proposal the Republicans put forward, I think, to this day has never been answered. Now, I could be wrong on that, but I don't think it has ever been formally addressed. So I sat in on those negotiations for several days, and what we got was a lot of good feeling talk. But when it came time to put it on paper, the majority wouldn't put it on paper. So let's not postpone this override. Let's vote down the motion to postpone, and let's have the veto override tonight. And then in the next week or so if we are still in session, let's really start a bipartisan process that is based on the formal processes of the House and the Senate. With that, I would yield back my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am ready to close after Mr. Pallone.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That doesn't mean that we need to continue those waivers. With that, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We support that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) who has been one of the Republican negotiators on this issue in the informal talks that have been occurring at various times over the last month.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that we shorten the debate to 15 minutes on each side. We don't have that many speakers and the hour is late. I have a feeling people's minds are not going to be swayed by the eloquence on either side on this debate.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the 5th District of the Garden State of New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I respect the gentleman from Illinois. I think we should do more of this, quite frankly. Madam Speaker, I'm going to yield myself such time as I may consume now to respond to my good friend from Illinois. I was in the House when SCHIP was passed. I was not in the leadership, but I was on the committee. My recollection is a little bit different than my friend from Illinois. There were some Republicans, I think Senator Hatch was one of the ones in the Senate; Congressman Archer, who was the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. This did come out of the effort to reform welfare as it was then. There was a concern that as we tried to move primarily women who were single head of households off of welfare, if they didn't have a job that had health care, their children, in order for them to work, transition to work, that they needed health care. And President Clinton and the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate did agree that SCHIP was the answer. And it was a bipartisan agreement. I would give the President credit for supporting it, but I would also give the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate credit for supporting it also at that time. The bill that is before us tonight is not the bill that passed in 1997. We have over 600,000 adults on SCHIP, a children's health insurance program. Rhetorically, my friends on the majority side say they really don't want adults to be covered. But nothing in this bill moves those adults off of SCHIP. We don't know how many hundreds of thousands of noncitizens are covered. But most people agree that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Nothing in this bill has an enforcement mechanism to move children who are not U.S. citizens off the rolls. Not one thing moves that. And the 200 percent of poverty, the original SCHIP bill was between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. That's still a good principle. There are not 10 million children in America between 100 and 200 percent of poverty that qualify for SCHIP. The most authoritative number is that there may be an additional 800,000. Now, the current SCHIP bill covers about 6 million children. In order to get to the 10 million number, you have to go way above 200 percent, probably above 300 percent and maybe even as high as 400 percent. So this 10 million number, there are about 80 million children in America. Most of those children, luckily, have health insurance through some sort of a private sector employee-sponsored health insurance program. Six million have it under SCHIP, and then there are several million that have it under Medicaid. But there are not 10 million between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. Those of us on the Republican side, we support SCHIP. We support the original program. We may even support something expanding it beyond the original program. But we don't support some of the ideas that take it up to as high as 300 to 350 percent of poverty, that cover noncitizens and that cover adults. That's what this debate is all about. So we hope that we have an opportunity. We hope that we have a veto vote and that we sustain the President's veto, and then maybe my friend from Illinois and myself can actually enter into a bipartisan negotiation that does exactly what he wants to do and what people like myself want to do.