Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Yes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Yes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the absolute strongest possible support of passage of the National Institutes of Health Reauthorization Act. This legislation, as amended by the Senate, passed the House by landmark votes several months ago of 414-2. It is not often that we see a bill of this magnitude receive such widespread support in both the House and the Senate. We should all be proud of ourselves for this bipartisan, bicameral product. This represents the culmination of three hard-fought years spent trying to reauthorize the NIH, a crown jewel of the Federal Government. When I first took over as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was surprised to learn that such an important agency of our Federal Government had not been authorized for over 13 years. Now I know why. The amount of work required to restructure this agency and at the same time gain the involvement and support of all the stakeholders and advocacy groups has been absolutely breathtaking. However, having said that, the hard work has paid off, and we now see the fruits of our labors before us this evening. The Energy and Commerce Committee has adopted numerous pieces of legislation in the years that I have served as chairman, but I would not put one piece of legislation, including the Energy Policy Act, which was a very major effort, above the importance of this bill that is before us right now. I want to thank Congressman John Dingell, the ranking member, soon to be the chairman again of the committee, for his tireless efforts. I want to thank Anna Eshoo. I want to thank Richard Neal. I want to thank the Speaker of the House, and the majority leader, John Boehner. I want to thank Bill Frist, thank Harry Reid, I want to thank Ted Kennedy. I want to thank Mr. Grassley, I want to thank Mr. Lott, Mr. Harkin. I could go on and on for all the Senators and House Members who have worked to make this legislation possible. It is truly a bipartisan effort, and a major, major accomplishment of this Congress. I also want to thank the current director at the NIH, Dr. Elias Zerhouni. He has been absolutely astounding in his continual optimistic efforts to approve this bill and to gain support for it. I want to thank all the stakeholders, over 90 national organizations have endorsed this legislation. I want to thank the major research universities of America for their hard work. I want to thank the 27 institute directors for their hard work. In conclusion, I ask in the possible strongest terms for the support of every Member of this House to pass H.R. 6164, as amended by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we pass this bill unanimously, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6164) to amend title IV of the Public Health Service Act to revise and extend the authorities of the National Institutes of Health, and for other purposes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support tonight of S. 3718, the Pool and Spa Safety Act that has come to this body with the help and the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), and Senator George Allen of Virginia. This legislation, if the House and Senate pass it this evening, will help to ensure that backyard pools will no longer present an unexpected danger to American children and families. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I would point out to my Republican colleagues, there are no Federal mandates in this bill. There is a consumer product safety standard that would require new pool drain covers that are sold or entered into commerce and installed 1 year after date of enactment of this bill to meet certain safety standards. So there is a safety standard in the bill that is not in current law, but in terms of any mandates on swimming pools that are already in existence, there are no Federal mandates in this piece of legislation. I urge passage of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3718) to increase the safety of swimming pools and spas by requiring the use of proper anti-entrapment drain covers and pool and spa drainage systems, by establishing a swimming pool safety grant program administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to encourage States to improve their pool and spa safety laws and to educate the public about pool and spa safety, and for other purposes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, this is a good piece of legislation. I have a 15-month-old son, Jack Kevin Barton. We have a hot tub in our back yard in Arlington, Texas. We keep it covered at all times unless one of the family is actually using it. This type of legislation if passed and implemented will make it much more difficult for small children who are unattended and wander out and get into these pools and spas and drown because they are not as safe as they could be. I hope that the House will unanimously pass the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3546) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to serious adverse event reporting for dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs, and for other purposes.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate 3546, the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act, and urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, there are no changes on this bill that I am aware of.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We will provide a copy, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just in closing, I would urge support of the bill. The dietary supplement industry is a mature industry now, and I would estimate over 90 to 95 percent of those in the industry support passage of this bill. There are some segments of the industry that do oppose it. This is a Senator Orrin Hatch bill. I know that Congressman Cannon here in our body strongly supports it. I would hope that we would pass it.

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

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment to H.R. 1554.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. We can withdraw it. I have no problem asking unanimous consent to withdraw this request to verify that what you have is the right version.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Commerce be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 707) to reduce preterm labor and delivery and the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and complications due to pregnancy, and to reduce infant mortality caused by prematurity, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is exactly the bill that is at the desk. I have a copy here and I have read it and I can assure the Members that it is okay on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 6164, H.R. 5280, H.R. 5472, H.R. 1245, S. 3718, S. 1608, S. 3678, S. 707, H.R. 6143, H.R. 1554, S. 3546. S. 2563, S. 4092 and H. Res. 335, and to insert extraneous material on the bills.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join Chairman Gillmor and Chairman Boehlert in introducing H.R. ___, consensus legislation to implement the legal obligations of the United States of America under the Stockholm, or POPs, Convention; the Rotterdam, or PIC, Convention; and the Aarhus POPs Protocol to the Geneva LRTAP Convention. This legislation represents an enormous effort that started in the Energy and Commerce Committee over 2 years ago to bring the United States into compliance with 3 multilateral chemical agreements that have already gone into effect. It is vitally important that the United States be full-fledged participants at these Conventions and this legislation, along with ratification by the Senate, enables us to be a full and active party. More importantly, it allows our country to contribute its vast database of knowledge on chemical substances and mixtures as new chemicals are added to these agreements. Without implementing legislation, the United States government participates at a level akin to that of an NGO: permitted as ``outside lobbyists,'' but not permitted to vote on important decisions where our expertise and scientific knowledge will be critical. How is this bill different from H.R. 4591, the bill that was reported favorably by the Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday, July 12, 2006? While both bills give full, legal consideration to costs and benefits through a strong and transparent rulemaking procedure characterized by rigorous scientific analysis, the consensus bill eliminates the requirement to utilize a ``weight of the evidence'' approach in assessing risks and effects. This bill also clarifies concerns raised about potential state preemption possibilities. In accord with long-standing U.S. practice to not agree to new treaty obligations unless our country has the legal authorities in place to comply with those obligations, section 6(e) of this legislation provides that any Federal preemption of state laws cannot occur unless a rule or order implementing our obligation has been issued under this Act and has gone final or become effective. Additionally, section 2 of this bill provides that no regulation issued under this authority may become effective unless the United States consents to be bound to a treaty obligation regarding that chemical substance or mixture. This modification will end the misguided criticism of H.R. 4591 on preemption issues, while preserving and codifying State Department practice. Mr. Speaker, this legislation does not represent an overhaul to the Toxic Substances Control Act, which could take years to debate. Instead it represents a broad consensus to enact the limited legislative fixes to bring the United States into full compliance with its obligations under these agreements, and authorizes discretion to the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate additional chemicals that combines a deferential regulatory standard with rigorous and practical sound scientific analysis. As decisions are currently being made that affect American interests, the legislation represents the responsible thing to do and I would urge our colleagues in both bodies to pass it as soon as practicable. Mr. Speaker, on a personal note it's my pleasure to offer our colleague from New York, Mr. Boehlert, my best wishes as he leaves this body to pursue new endeavors. His collaboration on this bill, and others, has had a real impact.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the last evening that I will stand before this body, at least for a while, as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and there is still work that I have to do later this evening on several votes that we are still working on with the Senate, and I hadn't intended to speak on this, but I listened to the debate, and I felt compelled that at least one full committee chairman should come and speak in favor of this resolution. I believe there are 18 standing committees of the House of Representatives, and the staff ratios on the committees is two-thirds Republican because we are in the majority and one-third Democrat because they are in the minority. Since the voters spoke in November, those ratios are going to switch. On the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is one of the larger standing committees, right now there are some 60-odd majority Republican staffers and some 30-odd minority Democrat staffers. Well, the Democrats are going to be staffing up, as they should, but it means that about half the Republican staff on the Energy and Commerce Committee is going to have to seek other employment, which is around somewhere between 30 and 35 people. Now, thanks to an agreement with the majority and the minority leadership of this Congress, for the first time we have agreed if this resolution passes to provide up to 2 months of severance pay for the majority staffers that have to be laid off. If the Energy and Commerce Committee is reflective of the full Congress and that means that every other committee on the Republican side is losing approximately 30 staffers, that is about 540 staffers. I don't know what the leadership staff decline is, but let us say that is another 60. That is 600 Republicans who through no fault of their own are going to be out of a job December 31. If you take the average salary of about $75,000 or $80,000, and I do not know that that is the average but that is a pretty good guess, we are talking about a severance package, if everybody takes the full 2 months, of $10 million, give or take half a million dollars. I think that is fair. Now, the question has been raised about this coming up in the dead of night. I read about this in Roll Call earlier this week. I didn't know it was coming up tonight as a resolution, but I read a story in Roll Call that the Speaker, Mr. Hastert, and Ms. Pelosi had agreed to some sort of a severance package. And I instructed my staff that I certainly wanted to apply for the Republicans on the Energy Committee who could take advantage of this. The reason we do not do it for personal staff is because you are either retiring and the Member knows that his staff has to find a job or you got defeated in an election and a new Member is coming in to take your place. But that office, that district, will still have the same number of staffers in the next Congress. It may be a different Congressman or Congresswoman. Now, this may not be the perfect way to do it, but it is a good way to try to do it. And I would hope that the Republicans will vote for this because if anybody wanted to be partisan and vote ``no,'' it would be the Democrats. They are adding staff. This is something that benefits the current majority and our most loyal people, some of who could double and triple their salary if they didn't want to work on committees or professional staff. It is a small price to pay. If we need to find a better way to do it in the next Congress, because I certainly hope that I am going to be coming back 3 years from now as chairman of the committee and not as ranking member, let us do it. But let us please vote for this tonight.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the conference report on H.R. 5682 includes language implementing the ``Additional Protocol'' to the U.S. nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The other Body gave its advice and consent for the Additional Protocol in 2004, but without enactment passage of this implementing legislation the Additional Protocol cannot enter into force. Following the 1991 Gulf War, IAEA member states took steps to strengthen the nuclear safeguards system. This led to the development of a model ``Additional Protocol'' to supplement safeguards agreements and amend verification arrangements. It is designed to improve the ability of the IAEA to detect clandestine nuclear weapons programs in non-nuclear-weapons states by providing the IAEA with increased information and expanded inspection access. As of March of 2006, 110 countries had signed additional protocols, including all the nuclear weapons states, and 78 countries have them in force. The U.S. is not obligated to accept safeguards under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty or the Additional Protocol. However, the U.S. already allows safeguards to be placed on certain facilities and materials under a voluntary agreement with the IAEA. This underscores our support for the Nonproliferation Treaty. The U.S. signing the Additional Protocol demonstrates that adherence will not commercially disadvantage non-nuclear-weapons states. Under both the voluntary agreement and the Additional Protocol, the U.S. maintains a national security exclusion and the right to manage IAEA access to facilities or information of direct national security significance. Enactment of this implementing legislation provides the President with authority to permit IAEA inspectors, accompanied by U.S. representatives, access to certain facilities and to information on activities in the U.S. It also authorizes the Department of Commerce and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop implementing regulations and conduct training and trial inspections. Finally, the legislation sets forth procedures for the inspections, similar to those for the Chemical Weapons Convention, and establishes civil and criminal penalties for the failure of U.S. entities to provide such information. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will strengthen our Nation's ability to advance the cause of universal acceptance of increased safeguards and for that reason I urge both Bodies to adopt the conference report and send it on to the President for his signature. Among the many tributes to our beloved colleague, Henry Hyde, this bill and what it can do for global nuclear security is among the most worthy.