Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I'm the last speaker, so I reserve my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have had an additional speaker show up, so if it would be appropriate, I would yield 1 minute to Mr. Kingston of Georgia.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Our speaker talked about Texas's rank in terms of SCHIP. In the first year that SCHIP was in law, Texas is a biennial State in terms of its legislature so we weren't able to get the program up and running. But in the second biennium, we did get it up and running under then- Governor Bush's leadership. Texas now ranks third in terms of the number of absolute children, and I would say in the top five in terms of percentage of eligible children, under SCHIP.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close when it is time to close.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker and distinguished Members of the House of Representatives, I have in my hand a letter dated September 27 from myself and the majority of the Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee asking Speaker Pelosi to refer the SCHIP bill to the Energy and Commerce Committee so that we truly could have a bipartisan compromise. If we could defeat this motion to postpone the veto, we could then move to a motion to refer the bill to the committee and honor the letter that I have sent to our distinguished Speaker. We are going to sustain the President's veto whenever that vote occurs. In the history of the Republic, there have been over 2,000 vetoes of bills. Only 106 of those vetoes have been overridden. This will not be 107. We will sustain the veto when that vote occurs and then hopefully we will begin the bipartisan process that should have begun back in January when the new majority took over. When that day comes, the debate is not going to be about whether there should be a SCHIP program. There should be. The debate is not going to be whether we should cover low-income children. We already do that under Medicaid. The debate is not going to be whether we should cover children between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. We already do that. The debate is going to be, should we cover adults? Most Republicans say no, we should not cover adults. The debate is going to be about illegal residents of our country. Should we cover illegal residents? Most Republicans are going to say no. I am not sure what our friends on the majority side are going to say. They may say no, they may say yes, they may say both. We are going to have that debate. There are 78 million children in America. As far as we can tell, when you compare the numbers between the majority side and the minority side and the President's numbers, we are really having the debate about between 1.2 million and 800,000 children in America today that for some reason are not covered, and they fall within the income eligibility levels that we all tend to agree on, which is at least up to 200 percent, maybe 250 percent of poverty. So we will focus the debate at some point in time, and at that point in time, we will have a bipartisan compromise. The President wants to reauthorize SCHIP. The Republicans want to reauthorize SCHIP. We just don't want to cover high-income Americans, we don't want to cover illegal residents, and we, the Republicans, don't want to cover adults. Let's vote not to postpone the veto. Let's have the veto today and then begin the process that should have begun back in January of this year. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, September 27, 2007. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Speaker: Circumstances have combined to present the House with an unusual opportunity to restore a part of the usual process by which legislation, major and minor, is produced by the House in normal times. As you know, legislation reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was approved on Tuesday night by a margin that plainly implies our House will sustain the anticipated veto. As you also know, that legislation was the product of decisions which largely ignored the regular and established legislative process. In our committee, we had a single general hearing on children's health. There was no legislative hearing on the House SCHIP bill, and no markup by our Health Subcommittee. The full committee markup was restricted to reading the legislation because the 500-page bill had only been revealed to most of us at 20 minutes to midnight on July 24, just 10 hours before the markup was scheduled to open. Then on the House floor, amendments were barred. Strategic errors by the majority generated House and Senate bills so distinctly different that a conference committee to work out the differences was deemed impossible. Thus the House was required to consider a take-it-or-leave-it patchwork of private agreements in lieu of a normal conference report. As you know, House Republicans were denied access to any part of the negotiations. That solution was said to be ``creative'' by a prominent member of your party. We opposed the SCHIP bill that came to us on Tuesday, and not only because of the terrifically flawed process; you supported it, and we think largely because you are proud of the bill's content. Yet we gather from your remarks that you and many other Democrats also believe the makeshift bill we passed Tuesday night is hardly perfect, and could be improved dramatically. It seems to us that until November 16, when the temporary extension of SCHIP under the continuing resolution expires, we have a second chance to get both the process and the policy right. All Republicans have ever wanted was a fair opportunity to understand, debate and affect the legislation in a positive way. During the crafting and passage of both the CHAMP Act and the House-Senate package of amendments, none of these possibilities were available to Republicans or, for that matter, to most Democrats. That failing can be revisited and remedied if you are willing to respond to the inevitable requirement for an SCHIP extension by conducting a normal legislative hearing and a traditional markup. Given a common-sense opportunity to actually read and comprehend a bill reauthorizing SCHIP--surely a handful of days could be permitted and please, this time without a midnight document delivery--our strong preference would be to stand and debate, then let the votes decide the outcome. All you need do is convene the relevant committees between now and November 16 to do the work they were designed to do. Second chances on legislation always seem possible, but never seem practical. We're about to have a practical second chance to do it right. While Democrats control a majority of the votes, no Democrat we know claims to have a monopoly on good ideas. Madam Speaker, SCHIP should never have become the intensely partisan issue that it did become. A time will come, however, when no more political advantage can be wrung from it. We think that time is nearly upon us, and we should use it to achieve a bipartisan bill through a cooperative effort. Still, Democrats and Republicans do have different views and if our principles cannot be reconciled through good-faith bipartisanship, an honest airing of facts accompanied by actual amendments and real votes cannot help but produce a better bill than the one we passed on Tuesday night. Whether intended to produce bipartisan agreement or a clash of values, a legislative hearing would lay the groundwork for a formal markup. Such a process can occur if the chairmen of the Energy and Commerce and the Ways and Means committees can be prevailed on to take the requisite steps, and only you can accomplish that task. We hope you can find a way to agree that good process will produce better legislation, and that you will instruct the committees to conduct public hearings followed by fair, open markups of the SCHIP extension that will be required. Sincerely, Joe Barton, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Nathan Deal, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Health; Ralph Hall, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Ed Whitfield, Committee on Energy and Commerce; John Shadegg, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Steve Buyer, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Joe Pitts, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Lee Terry, Committee on Energy and Commerce; J. Dennis Hastert, Committee on Energy and Commerce. John Shimkus, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Chip Pickering, Committee on Energy and Commerce; George Radanovich, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Greg Walden, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Mike Rogers, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Sue Myrick, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Michael Burgess, Committee on Energy and Commerce; John Sullivan, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Marsha Blackburn, Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished subcommittee ranking member from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. One of the speakers on the majority side several speakers ago from the great State of Wisconsin was talking about the children. In his home State, they cover 110,000 adults and only 56,000 children under SCHIP.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that of the 30 minutes yielded me, 15 minutes of that be yielded to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. At that time, we were told that we didn't have time for that, that we had to move that bill before September 30 so that the children of America wouldn't lose their health insurance. Well, that bill, the CHAMP Act, passed this body. It never was brought up in the other body. Thankfully, it is gone. So you would think that with the continuing resolution that passed last week, we would now have some time to look at the SCHIP issue on a bipartisan basis here in the House and come up with a compromise that could be passed and signed by the President before the continuing resolution expires on, I think, November 16. What we are being told today is that since the President vetoed the bill, we don't want to vote on the veto today, we want to postpone it, I believe, until October 18. Now, why is that? If it was such a rush last month, you would think that it would still be a rush now and they would want to get the veto out of the way and then work together to come up with a bill that the President would sign. So it would seem to me that the Democrats are saying, Well, let's have a 2-week period here to try to play politics with this. I think that is wrong. I checked with the Parliamentarian about when was the last time a motion to postpone a veto was authorized by the House. It is not done very often. The last time was 1996. So I would hope we would defeat this motion to postpone and let me offer a substitute motion to refer the veto to the committee of jurisdiction. We then could have a process, have a bipartisan compromise, and bring it up within 2 weeks and vote for it, send it to the other body and send it to the President, and I bet he would sign it. That is what we should be doing, not voting to postpone a veto vote which we know when that veto vote comes, we will sustain the President's veto. With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Before I yield to Mr. Deal, I want to ask the distinguished subcommittee chairman a question if I could, and I will do it on my time. Why are we postponing for 2 weeks?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are not postponing for any substantive reason; we are just postponing for political reasons.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, my 2-year-old hasn't needed a time-out yet.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 27, 2007, I was unable to make the first vote in a series because I was at the White House for a bill signing of the Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act of 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on motion to adjourn which failed by the Yeas and Nays: 175-229 (Roll No. 914). Stated against:

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The answer is no. I was allowed to testify at the Rules Committee last evening. That's the only formal opportunity I was ever given in the last 9 months on this bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentleman from Michigan has objected, and I respect that objection. But what that means is that they want illegal residents of the United States of America to get these benefits. That is what the objection means. So for that reason alone, I would ask that we vote against this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we have spent most of today actually trying to read the bill. I have the bill in front of me. In this 2-minute period, I want to discuss section 605 of the bill. Section 605 of the bill has the title: ``No Federal funding for illegal aliens.'' It is a very brief section, two lines: ``Nothing in this act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents.'' That is it. So the title of section 605 would have you believe there's going to be no Federal funding for illegal aliens. When you specifically read the section, it just says nothing in the act allows payment. It doesn't prohibit it. Now, if the authors of section 605 really don't want illegal aliens to receive funding under this bill, this section ought to read something like this: ``This act prohibits Federal payments for individuals who are not legal residents or citizens.'' Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent to substitute the language that I just read: ``This act prohibits Federal payments for individuals who are not legal residents or citizens.''

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my unanimous consent request is to substitute for what is in the bill: ``Nothing in this act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents,'' that is in the bill, I ask unanimous consent to substitute: ``This act prohibits Federal payments for individuals who are not legal residents or citizens.''

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And since I really have a real minute and a half, I'm going to try to go through this as quickly as possible. Republicans want to reauthorize the SCHIP program. We do want to refocus it on the original intent of the program, which was near-low- income children in families between 100 and 200 percent of poverty. We understand that in the 10 years of the program's existence that waivers have been given and there are some States that cover up to 350 percent of poverty, and some States cover adults. But as our distinguished Speaker just said, Republicans are for the children, and we want to focus the SCHIP funds on those children and those families that don't have private insurance and aren't covered by Medicaid; and we believe that that is children in families somewhere between 100 percent of poverty and 200 percent of poverty. And when the President rightfully vetoes this bill, and when the House of Representatives rightfully sustains the President's veto, it is my hope that we will get with the other body and the Democratic leadership at the leadership level and Chairman Dingell and Chairman Rangel, and we will work out a bipartisan compromise that does cover the health care needs of the needy children of America that currently, in spite of our best efforts, do not have the health insurance and the health coverage that they need. To make that possible, we have to defeat this bill, or at least get enough votes to sustain the President's veto of this bill, and then work together in the near future to do some of the things that we have talked about on the floor this evening. Vote ``no'' on the SCHIP bill this evening.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, here we are again. Once again, we are being forced by the Democratic Leadership of the House to vote on a bill of vital importance to millions of our constituents without the ability to actually analyze its contents. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are being forced by the Democratic Leadership to vote less than 24 hours after they introduced a bill that is hundreds of pages long and spends hundreds of billions of the taxpayers' dollars. Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are being forced to vote on a bill that was concocted in secret and unveiled in the middle of the night. When this sort of thing happens, everybody wonders what the Majority is trying to hide, and why they need to hide anything. I truly hope that the Democratic Leadership does not expect me to vote in favor of a 299-page bill that Republicans saw for the first time at 6:36 p.m. yesterday evening. I believe in faith, but not in blind faith. I challenge the supporters of this bill to come to the floor of this House, look people in the eye, and say that they understand all of the provisions that are actually in this bill. Because I have some questions for you. Mr. Speaker, it would be a compliment to say that the so-called process which produced this bill is an abuse of our democratic system of government. It was so much worse than garden-variety abuse. It was a travesty and an abomination, and it was pathetic. Yet, I'm sure that some will show up here with a handful of talking points from the staff who actually wrote this legislation, and explain to us that it is not a pathetic abomination, but a wondrous triumph of bipartisanship. I challenge any Member that would claim that this bill is bipartisan to give me the name of one Republican in the entire House of Representatives who directly participated in these discussions. Name just one. I know that the authors of this bill certainly did not consult with either Mr. Deal or myself; I know that they have not included any Members of the Republican Leadership in the House; and I'm not aware of a single Republican Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Ways and Means Committee being invited to participate in this process. Now we have not had time to analyze this product that the Democrats are going to bring to the floor today but the Congressional Budget Office has. Yesterday at the Rules Committee, it was stated that this bill would put 4.4 million new people on to SCHIP. However, according to the CBO close to a million of those children were already enrolled in Medicaid and over 1.5 million of those newly enrolled in SCHIP were already enrolled in private coverage. It was also stated last night at the Rules Committee that this bill does not expand eligibility under SCHIP. If that is the case then why does the CBO estimate 1.2 million of the newly enrolled people in SCHIP come from expanding the populations that are eligible for the program? Now those comments last night could have been misstatements because people just really do not know what is in this bill. It is difficult to know what is in a bill that no one has seen. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if someone can explain to me why the Democratic Leadership has decided to wait until just days before SCHIP expires to bring their reauthorization to the House floor. We have known for well over 10 years that the current SCHIP authorization would expire on September 30, 2007, and the Democratic Leadership in the House and the Senate have known since early November that they would be in charge of actually producing a bill to reauthorize this vital health care program for low-income, uninsured children. Yet, here they are, a full 10 months later, jamming a bill through the House with fewer than three legislative days before the entire program expires and children's health care stops. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was not sent here by the 6th District of Texas to be quiet and do what the gentle lady from San Francisco instructs me to do. I was sent here to represent my constituents' best interests and I demand the ability to do what I have sworn to do. We all know that the President has promised to veto this version of the bill, so why are we wasting precious time on a bill that we all know doesn't stand a chance of ever becoming law? While we are down here on the floor participating in this Theatre of the Absurd, the Democratic Leadership is in the back rooms trying to figure how they will extend the SCHIP program for another 6 months or a year. We all know this to be a fact, but I guess the Democrats want to pick a fight with the president so they can pretend that he is against children, and only then will they permit everybody to do the right thing and extend SCHIP. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry it's come to this. The pettiness of this transparent political strategy to damage and weaken the president is a new low. I regret that the state of political strategy has come to this. I'd hoped that we would not engage in this game, and it's still not too late to stop it. We could start debating how to best extend the SCHIP program so that we can actually do the job people sent us here to do. We still have a chance to write a responsible, long-term reauthorization of the SCHIP program. Now, it's true that writing a solid, bipartisan bill will not give the president a black eye, but that's the price that Democrats will have to pay. Given that millions of needy children are depending on us, it doesn't seem like a big price.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also only have one speaker, that's myself, to close. What is the order of closure?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished Member from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).