Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is not in order or it is in order?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I understand the rules that we are operating under, and I am totally supportive of Mr. Gingrey's amendment on the Ag appropriations bill. I listened with interest to my committee chairman, Mr. Dingell, earlier when he rose to speak about the process in the Energy and Commerce Committee. He didn't talk about the Gingrey amendment. He didn't talk about anything dealing with the Ag appropriations. So I am simply trying to get some information from him about what he spoke of, and I think the rules of the Energy and Commerce Committee require a 36-hour advance notice, and we weren't given that 36-hour notice on that bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. And I think the chairman knows it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy. Mr. Chairman, I think the majority is embarrassed to have the question answered. I think the majority knows that we were not given the bill within the 36-hour window. We weren't even given it within a 12-hour window.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the McHenry amendment. And I want to compliment the subcommittee chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro, for her openness and bipartisanship in preparing the ag appropriation bill and working with Ranking Member Kingston. I asked Mr. Kingston, I said, have y'all held hearings on the bill? He said, yes, we held lots of hearings. I said, did you prepare a draft that was circulated in a timely fashion? He said, yes, we prepared a draft, circulated in a timely fashion. I said, was there an open markup where Members could offer amendments on both sides of the aisle? And he said, yes, there was an open markup. So I want to compliment you. Now, I want to contrast that to the SCHIP bill. We've had one hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee in which SCHIP was the focus of Mr. Pallone's subcommittee. The bill came over the transom last Tuesday night at 11:36 p.m. The markup was scheduled, I believe, at 10 a.m. the next morning. Chairman Dingell did delay that until 4 o'clock the next afternoon, and then again delayed the actual markup after opening statements a little bit further. We didn't have any witnesses testify. We didn't have any open process. We didn't have a circulation of a draft. We got a 465-page bill at 11:36 last Tuesday evening. So that's, I mean, I'm in awe of Ms. DeLauro and the way she's operated her subcommittee, and Mr. Obey and the way he's operating the full appropriations committee, actually using the process. We're not doing that in the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Ways and Means Committee on the SCHIP bill. Now, I'm told, I don't know this for a fact.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I understand the rules, Mr. Chairman. I am going to try to comply with the rules. I support the Gingrey amendment just like I supported the McHenry amendment. I also believe that we should use as close an approximation of an open and fair process on the SCHIP reauthorization as we are using on the pending appropriations process; and I am informed by my staff that the SCHIP bill, which was 465 pages in length, was presented to minority staff at 11:36 p.m. last Tuesday evening; and I would like the distinguished chairman of the full Energy and Commerce Committee to indicate to me if that is a true statement.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, I need an answer to this question, and I am at a loss about how to get that answer. I listened to my chairman explain his position. I would hope that we could give him a chance to respond to a few simple questions about what he just told the body. So my question is, did we get the bill within 36 hours?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We have the utmost respect for each other, and that is sincere, and there is nothing artificial about that. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that the bill that was marked up or attempted to be marked up in your committee last week was given to the minority at 11:36 p.m. last Tuesday evening? Point of Order

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, this is an unfortunate day. Today, here on the floor of the House of Representatives, we are witnessing a blatant disregard for sound policy, fiscal restraint, and due process by the Majority Leadership. The Farm Bill that we are debating today is not the bill that was reported out of the Committee on Agriculture. It is a product of a late night raid by Leadership on the rules process to insert yet another tax increase. Farm programs have always had their champions and their detractors, but in the 22 years that I have served in this body, it has never been a partisan issue. I have voted in favor of almost every Farm Bill that has come before me, but I cannot vote for this one. I have consistently supported the hard working farmers and ranchers in my district, and I will continue to do so. But I cannot support this tax increase that has been added without debate, and without relevant committee input. Over the past year, I have had the chance to visit with producers from across my district. Practically every single one of them has told me that the Farm Bill we passed in 2002 has proven to be a sound safety net for their various enterprises. The bill that was reported out of the Agriculture Committee continued those proven principals. Unfortunately, this is not that bill. As ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I am also concerned that this bill, which has an entire title (Title 9) devoted to energy, was never seen by our committee. Beyond that, it seems that the left hand of our Majority in this body does not know what its right hand is doing. As the year began, I was a little surprised that the Majority seemed disinclined to work with me or other Members of the Minority in preparing energy legislation. But now I realize that they do not even consult with each other. Take a look at the energy provisions of the Farm Bill. They overlap and duplicate provisions in the legislation reported a few weeks ago by the Committee on Energy & Commerce. The Farm Bill has incentives for increased ethanol production; grants for consumer education on ethanol; a biomass fuel production section, etc. Meanwhile, the Energy & Commerce Committee has provisions to do these and similar things in its bill. Energy & Commerce has grants for cellulosic ethanol production, consumer education for flexible fuel vehicles, a study of ethanol blended gasoline, and others. If the Majority would like, I'll be happy to offer my services to help them sort out and reconcile these provisions among the two bills. Of course, if the Agriculture Committee's bill had been referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee as it should have been, we could have accomplished that reconciliation before the Farm Bill ever got to the floor, avoiding this confusion, conflict, and redundancy. That is why we have rules in this body on jurisdiction and that's why we should go back to following those rules.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, we honor the memory and celebrate the life of former First Lady, Claudia Taylor (Lady Bird) Johnson, and the contributions she has given to the people of a country she so dearly loved. I had the privilege of knowing Lady Bird through the White House Fellows program and as anyone who knew her as an individual would agree, she was a person of grace, charm, and an absolute delight to know. As a native Texan, a wife, a mother, a businesswoman, and First Lady, she emitted beauty through her presence and through her actions leaving a legacy that will not soon be forgotten. Lady Bird met Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1934 and in seven short months, had captured his heart as he asked for her hand in marriage. Mrs. Johnson stood by her husband and supported his endeavors with a perseverance and tenacity that one rarely finds. When LBJ volunteered for naval service during World War II, Lady Bird stepped in and kept his congressional office running and except for voting, served the need of every constituent. She again came to the rescue in 1955 helping staff keep things under control when her husband suffered a severe heart attack while serving as Senate Majority Leader. The former President once remarked that voters ``would happily have elected her over me.'' In 1960 Mrs. Johnson traveled over thirty-five thousand miles of campaign trail as she pushed LBJ towards a successful bid for the Vice- Presidency. During this tenure, she visited thirty-three foreign countries as an ambassador of goodwill. Lady Bird again stood by and supported her husband as he became the thirty-sixth President of the United States and helped console the hearts and minds of an entire country as they mourned the loss of President John F. Kennedy. As First Lady, Mrs. Johnson was highly involved in the President's initiatives supporting education and working to alleviate poverty. Under her own ambition, she created a First Lady's Committee for a More Beautiful Capital which later expanded to include an entire nation. Lady Bird was also the inspiration behind the Beautification Act of 1965 which transformed the landscape of our national highways. Never tiring in her life's work, at the age of 70, Mrs. Johnson founded the National Wildflower Research Center which is dedicated to the preservation and re-establishment of native plants in natural and planned landscapes. Lady Bird Johnson should be remembered by all as a person with elegance, grace and a tireless work ethic. She dedicated her life in service to others and gave so much of herself in support of her husband, family, and country. Today, as we celebrate the life of Lady Bird Johnson, we honor her contributions to the people of the United States and recognize that we have lost a great American that will be dearly missed.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute in rebuttal. First of all, we are not talking about a small amount of money. The 2.4 percent tap transfer is almost $700 million. That is a lot of money when you are only increasing the NIH 1.6 percent, or $750 million. It doesn't make any sense to me to then take $700 million of that and give to other programs that have their own line items. One of the programs that the gentleman from Wisconsin talked about has $329 million in its own line item. So we are saying if you are going to increase the NIH, congratulations. We are for it. Let's keep the money in the NIH. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Am I the only one who has time?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, one of the things I am most proud of in my service in the Congress was the reauthorization on a bipartisan basis of the National Institutes of Health in the last Congress. It is the first time the NIH has been reauthorized in over 13 years. It is the stellar institution for health care research in this country. As a part of that reauthorization, I promised the stakeholder community that I would support increased funding for NIH this year, and I have done the best I can to follow through on that commitment. Unfortunately, because of the press of funding that this particular appropriation bill has, the NIH increase in H.R. 3043 is only 1.6 percent. I am glad that it is that much. I wish it were more. The amendment before the body at this point in time would make sure that all of that money actually goes to the NIH. Sadly, a lot of the increase in NIH is going to be immediately siphoned off to two different funds. One is a global AIDS fund, which will take $300 million. The other is called a ``tap,'' which takes about $600 million to another line item outside of NIH. So what this Barton amendment would do was keep that $600 million that would be siphoned off for the tap fund and keep it in the NIH. I am not opposed to the amount that the appropriators have increased it. I wish it were more. But at least I want to keep as much of that money that has been increased within the NIH. That is what this amendment would do. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Who has the right to close?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I am going to yield the balance of my time to the former sheriff from the great State of Washington, Mr. Reichert.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 556. As I have previously stated on this subject, more foreign investment in America, rather than less, is good for the country. But I share the belief we must have a robust review process to screen the few investments that threaten our security. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States--CFIUS--was established to ensure such transactions that require greater scrutiny are evaluated in light of these concerns. I believe it is our responsibility to make sure the review process is working as intended and make changes where appropriate to enhance this process. There is no denying the benefits of foreign investment. Our culture of innovation and risk taking has positioned many of our industries at the forefront of global innovation. Foreign investors recognize potential in U.S. companies and risk their capital on companies because our country welcomes foreign investment. When domestic investment bypasses U.S.-based companies, we should be grateful the gap is often filled by foreign investment. The money provided by foreign investors creates jobs, growth and opportunity here at home, and we will only benefit by encouraging more investment. Shutting off foreign investment will hurt us more than it helps us. But we must be sure that the need to attract investments is balanced with our obligation to ensure they will not pose a danger or national security threat to our Nation. The foreign investment review process is not new, but the highly publicized proposed transactions involving CNOOC and Dubai Ports last year highlighted to Congress, and the public, a process in dire need of review. Many observed this process by which our government sorts out good investment from bad can be rather opaque. Congress and the relevant Committees--including the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has original jurisdiction dating back to the Exon-Florio Amendment--need to be aware of the criteria used to evaluate the transactions and which transactions should be subject to more rigorous review. Last Congress we acted on the need to clarify the review process and improve transparency. Through the Congressional process, the House passed legislation, but the Senate did not act. I am pleased the Senate has acted this Congress and we will pass this legislation to become law, but I am disappointed in several changes made to the original House-passed version. Regardless of the imperfections, this will be an improvement over current law. The legislation will provide consistent criteria with appropriate discretion for foreign investment reviews. The triggers for mandatory reviews will also improve the process without impairing our ability to attract significant and needed foreign investment. The legislation also expands the membership of the review board and will now include additional expertise, including the Secretary of Energy, which can only benefit the review process. Finally, I am pleased the reporting requirements will provide meaningful information to Congress. More robust information will provide a better understanding of the transactions and the criteria CFIUS evaluated to reach their decisions. I support the legislation because these changes collectively improve the process for foreign investment reviews and increase the transparency of the process.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I want to point out in the brief time that the gentleman from California still has, the Barton amendment doesn't lessen funding for this; it doesn't change the total amount of dollars at all. It simply protects the agreed-upon compromise that the stakeholders, the House, and the Senate on both sides of the aisle agreed to in the last Congress. And what the compromise was is, we moved more to a formula funding mechanism, two-thirds, and one-third for discretionary. And on the discretionary side, that is totally based on active HIV/AIDS case counts. It does not include people who have passed away from AIDS. And the gentlelady that spoke earlier about the number of people in San Francisco that have contracted the disease and have passed away is totally right that those people, unfortunately, are no longer here. They should not be counted for the discretionary funding because you can't help them now. We want the funding from the discretionary side to go to those that actually still have the infection.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. In the reauthorization bill that was carefully negotiated on both sides of the aisle and the Senate, we maintained a hold-harmless provision for the formula funding under the bill, but we did not put that hold-harmless provision to the discretionary funding in the bill. Discretionary funds are based on actual active case counts, how many HIV/AIDS patients you have. There is a methodology to determine how many of those individuals there are, and then the discretionary funds are distributed based on need. In the legislation that's pending in the appropriations bill, the hold-harmless provision, which in the authorization bill we had on the formula side, is also applied to the discretionary side. The effect of that would be that an area that at one time had a large number of HIV/ AIDS patients, but those patients had either passed away or been cured or moved out of the area, they wouldn't get to use the old patient count for their discretionary request. They could only count for discretionary purposes the number of active cases that they currently had in their area.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I am willing to not speak at all if Mr. Obey is willing to take my amendment without me talking about it. I was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the last Congress, and one of the things that I am most proud of was that in the late stages of that Congress we passed the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act of 2006. It's a 3-year reauthorization act. It was a bipartisan, bicameral compromise. Some of the House Members that worked on it included Congresswoman Mary Bono on the Republican side, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo on the Democrat side, Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, Congressman Dingell, of course myself, and many, many others. One of the cornerstones of that reauthorization was a formula change in the dispensation of HIV/AIDS funding to more reflect where the epidemic is actually still in play in this country. Under the old formula you had one-half of funds based on a formula based on population, things like this, and then you had one-half of the funds based on a discretionary fund. Under the reauthorization we changed that to two-thirds formula and one-third discretionary. But because we were changing the formula, we did put in a hold-harmless provision for the formula funding. What we were trying to do was make more funds available to those areas of the country where the epidemic was still prevalent and growing, and less funds on a discretionary basis where the epidemic had once been centered but was now thankfully not as prevalent. The pending bill before us changes that formula. Now, normally, that would be considered legislation on an appropriations act, and a point of order would have been reserved by Chairman Dingell of the committee, and all we would have to do is make a point of order, and it would be sustained. Chairman Dingell did not reserve that point of order, so I have to rise to try to strike it. My amendment does not change the amount of funding for HIV/AIDS. It does prevent this reversion of the formula so that we would keep the bipartisan, bicameral agreement, that we would have two-thirds of funds based on a traditional formula and one-third of the funding based on discretionary. Now, the effect of the pending legislation that I am attempting to strike, if we don't strike it, two cities will benefit, Newark, New Jersey, and San Francisco, California. Every other city that currently receives AIDS funding and HIV funding will be disproportionately disadvantaged. So I hope that the House will accept my amendment, and we will keep the formula that was agreed to after intense negotiations where we have a two-thirds and one-third split based on formula and discretionary, and a hold-harmless on the formula side but not a hold-harmless on the discretionary side. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Under the old law, the funding was based one- half on a formula and one-half on discretionary, and the discretionary counted active cases and also cumulatively, I believe, cases of individuals who had expired because of the infection. Under the new formula that we passed in the reauthorization bill, we changed the formula to two-thirds instead of one-half, and we reduced the discretionary from one-half to one-third. We did put a hold harmless provision in on the formula side, but we did not apply that hold harmless to the discretionary side. So we also had a specific hold harmless for the first year of the new authorization which we are currently in. The effect of the language that is in the pending bill basically puts hold harmless not only on the formula funding, which we increase from one-half to two-thirds, but it also puts it on the discretionary side, the effect of which would be areas which don't have as large a patient count as they once did would get more discretionary funding; conversely, those areas that 5 or 6 years ago, perhaps, didn't have much of an HIV/AIDS epidemic would be shortchanged.