Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3541, the Do Not Call Improvement Act. The legislation is simply very straightforward and I believe merits the support of all Members. The bill removes the requirement for the Federal Trade Commission to remove consumers' phone numbers from the Registry. The original rules for the Registry required consumers to re-register their phone number every 5 years. This was intended to keep the list accurate over the years as numbers were disconnected and reassigned to new customers. The rules as they currently are would result in many millions of Americans being removed from the Do-Not-Call list each year, whether they like it or not. The bill before us changes these rules by requiring that numbers on the Registry remain there, so that people's dinners don't start getting interrupted by telemarketers all of a sudden. At the same time, we direct the FTC to keep the list accurate by periodically ``scrubbing'' the list of invalid and disconnected numbers. I think this strikes the right balance for consumers and the industry. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, what is the order of closing?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Let me inquire how much time I have remaining, Madam Speaker.

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 yield myself 1 minute. I appreciate the gentleman that just spoke, but let's be factually accurate. There are over 600,000 adults under current law on SCHIP right now. They're not all pregnant women. Now, some of them may be, but not all 600,000, and nothing in this bill moves any adult off of SCHIP. Nothing. Madam Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I believe we only have two more speakers, so I'm going to reserve my time at this point.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to yield 4 minutes to a member of the committee and also a member of the ad hoc negotiation team, Mr. Walden of Oregon.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I'm going to yield myself 2 minutes. I want to thank my friend from Illinois for being honest. This is all about politics. It's not about policy. It's not about the children. It's about politics. So I commend him.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), a member of the Health Subcommittee.

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.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, everybody has said all that needs to be said on this debate; we just haven't said it this third or fourth time that we are here on the House floor. As the minority leader pointed out, at some point in time it still may be possible to reach a consensus on reauthorizing the SCHIP program because people on both sides of the aisle want to keep the program moving forward. The problem that most Republicans have is that we support the base program for near low-income children between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. We don't think that the SCHIP program, which was a children's health program, should be for adults. We don't think it should be for illegal aliens. We think it should be for children between 100 percent to 200 percent of poverty, and perhaps slightly higher than that if a good-faith effort has been made to cover children in that income bracket. My friends on the other side of the aisle appear to want to use this as a surrogate for universal health care. In some versions, the original version that came out in the CHAMP bill, they wanted to go as high as 300 and 400 percent of poverty. They continue, although they say they don't want to cover noncitizens, they won't agree to enforcement measures that make that possible. And they don't want adults on the program to have to exit the program in some reasonable time period, so we have the impasse that we have today. There haven't been many times in our Nation's history that we have postponed a veto override. I think less than 10 percent of the time, maybe even less than 5 percent of the time, but we have done it twice in a row on this particular bill. So we will postpone the bill until the week of the President's State of the Union so there can be more political posturing on the majority side right before the President comes before a joint session of Congress. This majority is right to try to postpone that vote to that time. It would be better if we went ahead and voted on it tonight, sustained the President's veto tonight so we could then hopefully continue work or start working in a bipartisan way to actually get an SCHIP reauthorization that was more than a 1-month extension at a time. If we have the vote tonight, the President's veto will be sustained. When we have the vote in January, the President's veto will be sustained. At some point in time we may yet get together and try to work out a compromise that both sides can agree to and have a 435- Member vote. Apparently that will not be any time in the near future.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have 4 minutes remaining, 1 of which will be used by the minority leader to close. My other speaker, Mr. Blunt, is not on the floor, so I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of comity, the Republican whip is not on the floor, so I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the renewable portfolio standard that is in the bill. This would require investor-owned utilities in the country to generate 15 percent of their electricity by renewable means by a date certain. And there was a phase-in so that beginning, I believe, in 2010 or 2011 there is a cascade stair step that each year they have to meet a higher percentage. Information that we have received from the Department of Energy indicates that of the 50 States, there are only seven that currently meet that requirement. Those are Alaska, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, Vermont, and California. There is another handful of States that come close: North Dakota, New Hampshire, Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, South Dakota, Alabama, and Iowa all meet within 10 percent to 8 percent. The rest of the States, which is approximately 40 States, don't even come close, and some of them, like Delaware and Missouri, are at 0 percent. So you would think that a 15 percent requirement might be doable. The problem is definitional, what is defined as ``renewable.'' New hydro is not defined as renewable. New nuclear is not defined as renewable. New clean coal technology is not defined as a renewable. So it has to be from geothermal, wind power, solar power, or biomass or hydro refitting. Now, when you look at it in that regard, this 15 percent requirement in certain parts of the country is almost impossible to meet. To compound the problem, the legislation before us says that States that don't meet the requirement can't go out; they can only buy credits to offset that requirement. I believe it says up to 27 percent of their amount that they have to meet. So you are going to put a State like Florida, a State like Georgia, some of the States that are at the lower end of the curve, Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Illinois, Utah, Maryland, New Jersey, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, these States are all somewhere between 0 to 2 percent. They're simply not going to be able to do it. They are not going to be able to do it. So while a renewable portfolio standard for electricity generation might seem like it's a wise idea in principle, when you put it into actuality, it is going to be almost an impossible idea to meet. And this bill says ``tough.'' So I would hope that we vote ``no'' on the bill. Since January the process for energy legislation has been a disgrace. H.R. 6 was never considered by any Committees, no hearings no mark-ups. H.R. 3221, a second try at an energy bill, was also bad. Only hours notice of the bill before mark-up; limited floor amendments; many bad provisions never considered in hearings; final passage on a Saturday with many members absent. The process since then has been far worse. I am aware of no Member discussions since August 4. If they have taken place no Member on my side of the aisle was invited or informed. The result: the terrible legislation before us today. The Pelosi ``energy bill'' consciously raises consumer costs for fuel, vehicles, and electricity while reducing consumer choices. It favors a few special interest investors at the expense of ordinary Americans and the U.S. economy. On CAFE: The bill raises fuel efficiency standards so high that consumers will face only three possible consequences: far smaller cars and trucks, far more expensive cars and trucks, or--more likely--both. I'm told that all but 8 out of some 350 models currently available in American showrooms would be banned from the market as the new fuel standards fully phase in. Moderate income consumers will be hardest hit. They don't buy hybrids today because the multi-thousand dollar premium for electric hybrid technology cannot pay for itself in fuel savings, even at today's sky-high fuel costs. Because consumers will prefer their older vehicles that match their needs better than the new car inventory, they will postpone trading in as long as possible. New car sales will plummet; manufacturing companies and their employees will suffer. The ones who won't agree are simply in denial. On renewable fuel mandates: The levels of corn-based and other biofuels required to be part of the U.S. fuel mix will drive up all fuel costs dramatically, even over today's high prices. Diverting corn from food and feed use to fuel has already cost consumers plenty in rising chicken, turkey, beef, and soft drink prices. This bill will only make that problem worse. It also mandates advanced biofuels that exist today only in laboratories and which may never be commercially available. It's like passing a law mandating that a horse not even born yet grow up to win the Kentucky Derby. The only way to do that is to bar other horses from the competition, as this bill does. On the Renewable Electricity Mandate: The bill would require electric companies across the United States (except in Hawaii and Alaska--they have special carve-outs) to generate 15 percent of their power from ``renewable energy.'' States that have the natural renewable resource base needed to meet such mandates already have them under state law. Remaining States that cannot meet the standard will have to buy their way out at consumer expense, as the bill provides. While the bill has some non-controversial energy efficiency provisions some sections are particularly harmful to consumers and small businesses. A section on regional standards for HVAC equipment would authorize DOE to create a program that could lead to penalties and lawsuits aimed at the small businesses in every Congressional district that install and repair our air conditioners and heat pumps. The punishment would likely kick in if the repairman installs, the wrong air conditioner, e.g., a Georgia-rated air conditioner on the wrong side of the Florida state line. It would dictate efficiency levels by state or region without regard to price, size, or even energy savings payback. Another provision gives DOE authority to dictate energy efficiency standards for manufactured housing. HUD already has a successful program that is improving efficiency while keeping manufactured housing affordable. DOE's ``price-is-no-object'' track record on energy efficiency could mean that manufactured housing will no longer be affordable for the moderate income Americans who rely on it today. And jobs will be lost. Bad as the bill was that passed the House on August 4, this one is far worse. Vote ``no'', do not be tempted.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Upton, from the great State of Michigan.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished member of the committee from the great State of Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Science Committee, Mr. Hall of Rockwall, Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. McCrery be allowed to control the time on the minority side.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize for 1 minute the gentlelady from the Mountain State of West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Radanovich of California.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I respectfully disagree with our distinguished majority leader. The bill before us is a change. It may be historic, but it is not positive. We are moving from a market-based energy policy, which has served this country well for over 150 years, to a government-mandated energy policy. We are mandating 36 billion gallons of biofuels which don't exist and probably won't exist. We are mandating that 15 percent of all investor- owned utilities be generated by renewable means, where in some States that is physically impossible. We are mandating that we improve automobile fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by a date certain, which, if that is technically feasible, it is going to be very expensive and probably raise the average price of an automobile several thousands of dollars. We are mandating all of these things in the interests of energy security, which is a noble goal. I think we would be better off developing the domestic resources of our great land, just like it says up there in the quote from Daniel Webster, instead of engaging in government mandates which will raise costs and probably not increase supplies.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to close debate on the minority side, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader from the Buckeye State of Ohio, the Honorable John Boehner.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee for yielding to me. I have, in the 23 years that I have been in this body, engaged in, I would say, approximately two dozen, maybe three dozen, debates on various energy bills. Almost every Congress we have some sort of energy bill that comes before this body. I have to say that my heart is sad today because, in the debate so far in this Congress on energy legislation, it has been fairly one- sided. It has been the majority trying to put their blueprint for America on energy in the committee and on the floor and in the Rules Committee with really no input and no debate from the minority party. I understand that the majority in the House has the right to work its will. We are not the other body, the Senate on the other side of the Capitol. We have a Rules Committee that is two to one plus one. We stack the deck so that the majority can make things happen. And that's a good thing. But the majority has responsibilities. One of the responsibilities is to hear the minority and give the minority the opportunity to have input and to have a debate and have their ideas voted on. In this Congress on energy legislation, the only Republican amendment that has been debated on the floor of the House is the motion to recommit. In the last energy bill, we were given a motion to recommit and we offered a full substitute that had clean coal technology, alternative fuels technology, that had some real energy, had some supply incentives. That motion to recommit was defeated, but at least it was debated. The rule before us today does not give the minority an option to have a motion to recommit. The rule before us today does not give the minority an option to have a substitute amendment. Once again we are on the floor of the House with one of the major components of our economy, energy legislation, and it is the majority way or no way. Well, I hope we would vote this rule down and go back to the Rules Committee and let us have either a Republican substitute, a Republican motion to recommit, some amendments, the Shimkus amendment on alternative fuels, the Upton amendment on renewable portfolio standards. They were all offered in the Rules Committee last night. They are substantive and real. They would improve the bill if they were allowed to be made in order. But this rule once again is a closed rule with one amendment, a Democrat substitute, no motion to recommit. The underlying bill is over a thousand pages. The underlying bill had not been seen in public until about 8:30 last evening. Obviously you can't digest a thousand-page bill overnight. I have been reading the table of contents trying to look at some summaries what is in the bill. Most is recycled. It is things that have been here before, but there are some new things. There is some provision for the State of New York, for example, in the tax title that diverts State income taxes that would normally be paid to the Federal Government, they are kept by either the State or the City of New York, and it is worth about $2 billion. There has been no debate on that. Now, I've got to give Chairman Rangel, I would assume I would give him credit for easing the tax burden of the people of his city and the people of his State. But there's not been a public debate on that. That's just a little $2 billion deal in the tax title of the bill. It may have showed up, it may have been there all along, but I just saw it reading through the summary about 10 minutes ago. So I don't think, if you're going to have a major policy debate on energy, which is worthwhile, and if the majority wants to change the energy policy, that's worthwhile too. But there ought to be a real debate and there ought to be real amendments, and we ought to let this body vote. This rule doesn't do that. This rule doesn't do that. And most of the things that are being extolled in the bill are things that were in the energy policy act 2 years ago. They're being extended. They're being expanded. That may or may not be a good thing, but we ought to have a debate about it. Do we really want to put a 36-billion gallon mandate for renewable fuels that can't be met by the current technology on the backs of the American people? This bill does that. I'm all for renewable fuels. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 had an $8- billion gallon mandate for renewable fuels. The market is exceeding that. But it's a stretch to go from 8 billion, which is current law, to 36 billion. And the technology doesn't currently exist. So maybe we ought to have a debate, maybe we ought to have some off-ramps, some triggers that we set the goal, but make sure that we have the ability to meet that goal before we put that mandate in. On the renewable portfolio standard for electricity generators, it only applies to investor owned; doesn't apply to nonprofits and to co- ops. I don't think that's a good idea. It doesn't allow all forms of renewable. For example, new hydro is not included as a renewable. You know, some sort of a clean coal alternative which would be an alternative form is not included. It's very restrictive. The wind part of this bill, we're for wind power. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 expanded the tax credit for wind. This bill rescinds part of that. So there's a renewable form that they're being regressive. So just in summary, I would hope that the majority understands that being in the majority gives you the right to set the agenda, but it shouldn't give you the right to stifle debate so that the minority has absolutely no input. And in this bill that's before us today, the minority in the House of Representatives has had zero, nada, zip, no input; and that's not good for democracy. So I hope that we'll defeat the rule, take it back to the Rules Committee, let's have a debate. Let's have some amendments made in order and then bring a real energy bill that's bipartisan back to the floor of the House of Representatives.