Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this bill which has been called a mishmash is the most comprehensive package of energy legislation that has been on the floor of the House of Representatives in almost 50 years. It touches on all aspects of energy production. It has a comprehensive conservation title. It has an extensive electricity reform title. It got bipartisan support when it came out as H.R. 6. It got bipartisan support when it came out as the conference report after a majority of the House and Senate conferees voted to bring it back to the respective bodies. I hope this afternoon when it comes up for a vote that once again we will send it to the other body and I hope it gets unanimous support this time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and his eloquent remarks when he talked about the impact of this bill, and that it would not have an impact, or if it did it would have a negative impact. I would agree with him in the short term that that is probably correct, that if we pass this bill and the other body passes this bill and the President signed it tomorrow, I think it is fair to say that the energy prices would not go immediately down. But I would dispute the assertion that over the long term there is no positive impact. I would offer the analogy of deciding whether to plant a field of corn. Obviously, the day you plant it you are not going to get an ear of corn to eat. But over time you are going to get bushels and bushels of corn to eat and to feed your family and to feed the world. Well, the same thing could be said about this energy bill. We have already passed it once in this body, 246 to 180. The reason that we are bringing it up again is because the other body has not seen fit to even bring it to a vote, and we are hopeful that if we pass it yet once again that at some point this summer the other body may see fit to at least bring it up to a vote. We need a comprehensive energy bill because gasoline prices are up, coal prices are up, natural gas prices are up, crude imports are up, refined product imports are up. We need to reform our electricity grid. This bill does that. We need to repeal PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This bill does that. We need to set up a program to go in and refit our existing old coal fired power plans. This bill does that. We need to determine if there is a better way to do automobile fuel efficiency in the program that is called CAFE. This bill does that. We need to increase our conservation efforts. This bill has provisions that it is estimated would eliminate the need for 130 additional power plants. We need to reform our hydroelectric relicensing process. This bill does that. I could go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I will simply conclude by saying this. There is not an alternative. If my friends in the other body or my friends on the other sides that are opposed to this bill have a better way to do it, let us see it. This bill has passed this House 246 to 180. It will pass the other body if it ever gets up to a vote. We need a comprehensive energy policy in my opinion in this country that is market based. This bill is that policy. So I hope that as we did back in November we once again pass this bill, send it to the other body, and hopefully get the other body to bring it up. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was driving down to Corpus Christi last Saturday afternoon with my wife, Terry, and her daughter Lindsey and her cousin Jackie and Terry's family for a brief family vacation when my staffer Andy Black called me on the telephone and said, Have you heard the news that President Reagan died this afternoon? And I said no, I have not heard that, but we immediately switched on the radio; and sure enough, there was a news bulletin from California that President Reagan had passed away. And so as we continued to drive down to Corpus, I began to reminisce about the President. My mind went back to the late 1970s when this country was mired in recession and interest rates were sky high and we had hostages in Iran and there was a spirit of pessimism that America could not be great anymore. And Governor Reagan came out of California and announced for the Presidency and said that there was hope, that not only could we be great again, but we would be great again. And that inspired me to campaign for him to be President of the United States in the 1980 election. And the night that he won in November of 1980, I dusted off an old White House Fellows application and changed the date and signed it and mailed it in. White House Fellows is a program that takes young men and women from all over the country and puts them in positions to observe the workings of the Federal Government either in the White House or in the Cabinet agencies. The year that I applied there were about 1,600 applications, and I was fortunate enough to be one of like 15 or 16 that got selected. I worked in the Department of Energy as a White House Fellow for Secretary of Energy James P. Edwards. The spring of 1982 the Secretary called me into his office and said, Joe, I am going over to the White House this afternoon for a Cabinet meeting. Would you like to go with me? I said, Mr. Secretary I would love to go with you. He said, There is one thing: you cannot say anything. You can only sit in the back of the room and listen. So I said, I promise. So we went over to the White House, and they walked us into the Cabinet room, and I was seated directly behind Vice President Bush, who was seated directly across from President Reagan. The President came in from the Oval Office and shook hands with his Cabinet, and he reached over and got a handful of jelly beans out of a jar in the middle of the cabinet table and ate the jelly beans and asked if anybody wanted them. Then he said, Gentlemen, what is the agenda for the day? And a Cabinet Secretary said it is the Caribbean Basin initiative and what to do about sugar quotas. The Secretary of Agriculture Jack Block raised his hand, he said, Mr. President, you have tasked me to try to help the American farmers and we are doing the best that we can, but sugar prices are low in the world market. And I think it would be disastrous for American farmers if you let more sugar into our country. And the President said, Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Then the Secretary of State, I think it was General Haig, raised his hand and said, Mr. President, I am the Secretary of State and you have tasked me with creating this Caribbean initiative to help the emerging democracies in the Caribbean. Their largest export crop is sugar. It would really help my job as Secretary of State if you allowed more sugar to come into the United States. And the President said, Thank you, Mr. Secretary. He said, Is there any other discussion? The rest of the Cabinet just sat there. The President said, Well, what we ought to do is take American wheat and Caribbean sugar and create cookies and create a cookie export, cookies for peace program maybe, to the Third World. The Cabinet chuckled about that; but he said, Really, I have heard what is best for the State Department and I have heard what is best for the Agriculture Department, now I want you gentlemen to tell me what is best for America. And there were no cameras and he really said that. And I just was absolutely inspired when he said it. I was sitting directly across from him behind Vice President Bush. Of course, I had been told I could not say anything, but when the President said that, Gentlemen tell me what is best for America, it kind of jumped out from me, I said, Right. That is why I voted for you. And, of course, the Secretary of Energy was aghast that I had said something. But the President looked over and he looked around the Vice President, he looked at me with a twinkle in his eye, did not say anything, he just smiled. And I knew then that that is why the American people trusted him, because he wanted to do whatever the issue was, what was right for America. So when I finished my White House Fellows program, I went back to Texas. And in 1984, John Tower announced that he was not going to run for the U.S. Senate, and Congressman Phil Gramm of the 6th district announced that he was going to run for the Senate and Joe Barton announced that he was going to run for the 6th district as a Republican. Because I wanted to be a part of the Reagan revolution in Washington. I was very fortunate that I got elected that year. I primarily got elected because my entire campaign was Reagan-Gramm-Barton. And when people went to vote for President Reagan and Senator Gramm, they also voted for me. So now as a senior member of the majority in the House of Representatives, I simply hope that I can do what little I can to help foster the Reagan vision for America, which is always do what is right for America.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing this bill to the floor and thank him for his leadership. H.R. 3866, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, will help prevent the abuse of steroids by professional athletes and will also address the widespread use of steroids and steroid precursors by college, high school and even middle school students. Steroid use has been banned in the United States since the passage of the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990. However, in recent years, new substances have become available that have the same effects on the body as anabolic steroids but are not banned under current law. These steroid precursors can be just as dangerous as those substances that have been banned themselves under the original Act. This legislation, which the Committee on Energy and Commerce had sequential jurisdiction on and was marked up in April in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, would add several of these new products to the list of banned substances and provide increased penalty for any individual who traffics in steroids within 1,000 feet of an athletic facility. This bill will go a long way toward ensuring that our Nation's athletes, both children and adults, will not be exposed to these dangerous products. I want to again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his excellent leadership on this and would urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3866.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I would like to include an exchange of letters to be included as part of the discussion of H.R. 3722, the Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments of 2004. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC, May 17, 2004. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Barton: I am writing concerning H.R. 3722, the ``Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments of 2004,'' which was introduced on January 21, 2004, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over matters concerning Medicare. Sec. 3 of H.R. 3722 waives the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this bill. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation. I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 3722, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration. Best regards, Bill Thomas, Chairman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3722) to amend section 1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 to impose conditions on Federal reimbursement of emergency health services furnished to undocumented aliens.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the author of the pending legislation, be allowed to control debate on this bill on the majority side.

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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 3722.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, if we can at least let some bill come up for a vote, we can solve this in conference. The policy difference can be worked out in conference, but unless there is a conference with the other body, there is not going to be anything to work out.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am interested in doing that. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I share the frustration that the gentleman has with the other body. If we could work together to get Members from the other body on both sides of the aisle to vote for cloture, and as the gentleman well knows, regardless of who controls the other body, it takes 60 votes to agree to limit debate, and a fair number of Members of the gentleman's party in the other body have failed to vote for cloture on this issue. I would be happy to work with the gentleman to work for cloture to bring the bill up.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) control the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say before I give my prepared statement that I too am embarrassed that this issue is on the floor for the sixth time in so many months because the other body is yet to do anything about it. It is past time that we should have passed this and the other body should have passed it, and we should have all attended a signing ceremony with the President of the United States so we can bring some medical malpractice reform to the health care providers of our country. We are facing a crisis in this country, and I do not use that term lightly, that dramatically affects our efforts to improve access to high-quality, affordable health care. Doctors in at least 19 States are facing astronomical increases in their medical malpractice insurance premiums. They have had their premiums doubled, and in some cases tripled. A hostile liability environment has forced doctors to stop performing certain procedures. In my own congressional district, I know of doctors who have retired because they cannot afford the medical malpractice insurance to continue their practices. This means as there are fewer doctors to provide health care, patients are going to be left with fewer treatment options. Fewer OB- GYNs means less preventive health care for women. It means less regular screenings for reproductive cancers, high blood pressure, infections and other health risks, and less preventive care means higher health care costs down the road. As insurance premiums continue to skyrocket, doctors will look to cut back on or eliminate care for higher-risk patients such as the uninsured. This will also affect how we recruit new doctors. Our country already has a difficult time providing access to high-quality health care in many underserved areas. We already lack a true health care marketplace where patients can shop freely for health care services and have a direct say about which doctor they will see. We do not need to make these problems worse, we need to fix them. The bill before us would begin the effort to fix them. The medical liability crisis is driving doctors out of the practice of medicine. Even if you have health insurance, what is it worth if there is no doctor available to treat you? It is not right that our courts have become a legal lotto system rather than a fair system that judges meritorious claims. We all agree if a patient is injured through malpractice or negligence, that patient should be compensated fairly for his injuries; but that is not happening today. Injured patients have to wait on average 5 years before a medical injury case is complete. Adding insult to injury, patients lose on average almost 60 percent of their compensation to attorneys and the courts. Even though 60 percent of medical malpractice claims against doctors are dropped or dismissed, we all pay the price. According to HHS, the direct cost of malpractice insurance and the indirect cost from defensive medicine raises the Federal Government's health care share of the cost by at least $28 billion a year. H.R. 4280 will help all Americans. It speeds recovery for injured patients who truly deserve compensation. It removes the perverse incentives in our current medical liability system that force doctors to look at patients as potential lawsuits. It will encourage employers to increase the scope of their health insurance benefits, and it will allow for greater investment in lifesaving technologies which help make America's health care system the best in the world. This legislation encompasses the best policy that can actually fix the medical malpractice crisis. It is high time for this legislation to become law. Again, I share the concerns of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that we have had to vote on this a number of times on the House floor. The problem is not that the House is continuing to vote on it, the problem is that the other body will not bring it up for a vote. I hope that we can pass it today and get the other body to bring it up and we can go to a signing ceremony with the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for each side?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the conference mechanism may not be as perfect as it should be, but it is a mechanism where policy differences can be worked on.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. Personal responsibility--not frivolous lawsuits--is the appropriate way to deal with obesity issues. As reported by the Judiciary Committee, however, H.R. 339 contained very broad language that could be read to include regulatory actions by at least two agencies within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce--the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FD). It is my understanding that it was not the intent of the authors to prohibit such lawsuits. Working with Chairman Sensenbrenner, we then developed language that is included in the manager's amendment today that specifically exempts actions brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. There can be no question, then, that if this bill were signed into law, it would have no effect on regulatory or legal rights and responsibilities under these statutes. I look forward to working with the Judiciary Committee as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004. And I want to compliment the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their strong leadership on this issue as well as the ranking full committee member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). They have all worked very well and very positively on this very important legislation. This bill has strong bipartisan support, 145 cosponsors in the House. It was reported out of the committee last week 49 to 1. The bill has been dubbed the ``Super Bowl Bill,'' but what many people I think do not realize is that H.R. 3717 was well on its way before the antics that we witnessed during the Super Bowl half-time show. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) had already held a hearing on it before the Super Bowl show occurred. But after that event did occur, one thing is absolutely crystal clear: This bill answers the call that we have heard from parents around the country, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of them, who are begging for some help. H.R. 3717 will make living rooms safe again all over America. We have been bombarded in recent past with indecent language and images over and over again. Between the use of an expletive by Bono at the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, Nicole Ritchie's string of expletives at the 2003 Billboard Awards, Janet Jackson's infamous performance during the 2004 Super Bowl half-time show, and innumerable instances of graphic sexual broadcasts by radio ``shock jocks,'' parents want and demand help. There is a clear need to provide the FCC with increased authority to hold all parties responsible for their actions. H.R. 3717 targets broadcast indecency by doing the following: Number one, it raises the maximum penalty cap for broadcast stations, networks, and performers to $500,000 for each indecency violation. Number two, it sets out specific factors the FCC must consider when setting fines so that the FCC must examine whether the violator is a small or large broadcaster, a company or an individual, and what entity is responsible for the indecent programming. Three, it streamlines the FCC enforcement process for networks and individuals who ``willfully and intentionally'' put indecent material over broadcast airwaves so that the FCC can prosecute on the first instance, instead of having to wait for a second violation. Now everyone, including performers, will be held responsible for their action from the get-go. Four, the bill requires the FCC to complete an action on indecency complaints within 270 days of receipt so that complaints do not languish at the FCC. In addition to collecting fines for indecency, the bill gives the FCC the authority to require broadcasters to air public service announcements to reverse harm from indecent programming. This is an idea that came from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and it is a very good idea. Five, it requires the FCC to take indecency violations into account during license applications, renewals and modifications. This idea came from the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Wilson). Number six, after three indecency violations, the bill would require the FCC to hold a hearing to consider revoking the broadcast station license, the gravest of penalties for a broadcaster. That idea, among others, came from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). Seventh and finally, the bill requires the FCC to report annually to Congress on the progress it is making as a result of legislation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3717 makes great strides in our effort to clean up the broadcast airwaves and return them to the decent Americans of our country. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Before I conclude, let me say that on the Schakowsky amendment I am going to strongly oppose that particular amendment. I think it is absolutely constitutional that performers themselves can be held accountable in the first instance and not after the second instance after the so-called ``warning ticket'' approach. So I will strongly oppose the Schakowsky amendment and then strongly support passage of the final bill. I thank the chairman for his strong leadership on the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this rule. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, H.R. 3717, has overwhelming bipartisan support. H.R. 3717, which was adopted on a vote of 49 to 1 by my Committee, increases the Federal Communications Commission's authority to assess fines for indecent broadcasts. As Janet Jackson revealed to the entire Nation during the Super Bowl Halftime, broadcasters and performers have stopped minding the public's store, allowing all sorts of offensive material to travel across the public airways. This is not a new problem. For years now, radio programming has gotten progressively more base, and within the last year and a half a number of so-called celebrities have let expletives fly on live broadcast television coverage of awards shows. Federal law already allows the FCC to assess fines on licensees and non-licensees for the broadcast of indecent content during hours when children are likely to be in the audience, and courts have made clear that the FCC's definition and regulation of indecent content is constitutional. The problem, however, is that the FCC currently is authorized to assess a maximum fine of only $27,500 per violation on licensees, and $11,000 per violation on individuals. Such weak penalties amount to little more than a cost of doing business, and provide little to no deterrent. What's more, the FCC can only assess such fines on individuals on the second infraction, which means that celebrities such as Ms. Jackson get a free pass on the first offense should they do something indecent. H.R. 3717 addresses these problems by raising the maximum fine to $500,000; permitting the FCC to consider revoking a broadcast license after the third offense; and allowing the FCC to fine an individual on the first offense. H.R. 3717 does not require such severe penalties, but gives the FCC needed discretion to tailor its sanctions to each particular offense. Perhaps this will send the message to broadcasters and individuals that indecency on our airwaves is no laughing matter. H.R. 3717 also imposes a shot clock on the FCC to ensure that these matters are resolved expeditiously. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, and I urge Members to support it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by commending my good friend from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for his excellent leadership on this and my friends on the Democratic side, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). The very fact that we have this Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awareness Act Amendments on the floor is helping to depoison the atmosphere of this House. It is good to be on the floor this afternoon working with our friends on the other side of the aisle instead of throwing bricks back and forth. So the very fact that we are bringing this piece of legislation to the floor is helping depoison the atmosphere in the House. This is a piece of legislation that builds on what was done back in 1999 when we authorized these poison control centers. Former Senator Dave Karnes, a former White House Fellow friend of mine from Nebraska, called me on this piece of legislation several weeks ago, asked if I would touch base with the House leadership and encourage them to move it, as it had already passed the Senate and was awaiting floor time. I went to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), and they were very willing to put this on a fast track; and, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for making this part of the package of the bill that is on the floor this afternoon. There are somewhere between 2 million and 4 million poison exposures each year to our Nation's children. Thankfully, in many cases of those cases, it does not end up in a catastrophic situation; but unfortunately, on occasion, it does. The bill before us today, when the President signs it, is going to minimize the possibility or the probability that those exposures will result in a catastrophic situation. As a father of three children, when they were at home, we took advantage of many of the programs that are in this act in terms of labeling our household goods and chemicals and medicines so that our younger children saw the little smiley face turned upside down, the little green poison control, and of course, it had the message on it and the phone number to call locally or regionally if one had a problem. So I rise in strong support of this. I am assured that we are going to have bipartisan endorsement; and, again, I want to thank the leadership for their strong work, and on our side the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and on the Democrat side, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their excellent work.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also understand that the renewable fuels definition under section 1501 of the conference report includes ethanol tertiary-butyl ether, or ETBE.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his strong leadership and excellent work in this. He is to be commended for one of the most important bills that is going to pass this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy regarding two important elements of the conference agreement subtitle A of title XV regarding ethanol and motor fuels. I note that the conference report includes authority to prohibit use of methyl tertiary-butyl ether in gasoline, or MTBE.