mr. barton: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. members should be paying attention to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: strike subsections b, d and e and insert subsections b and d. page 72, line 8, strike 110 and 111 and insert 109. page 72, after line 13, insert the following new subsection -- j. administrative expense prohibition. no funds provide under this title shall be used to conduct travel or gambling or gaming establishments in connection with official duties related to this title. and at the end of the bill add the following new title. title 3, deficit neutrality. section 301 sunset. the provisions of this action shall be suspended and shall not apply if this act will have a negative net effect on the national budget deficit of the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. barton: i thank the distinguished speaker. now that the members know exactly what's in the motion

mr. barton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. barton: i thank my friend from dallas. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barton: i thank the gentlelady from houston. it embarrasses me when my colleague from vermont says nice things about me since i'm opposing this bill. i will say before i list some of my concerns that there was a lot of input asked for and received by republicans both in the committee and outside of the committee. this is not a terribly bad bill, but it has one fatal flaw. it is not paid for. it in my opinion authorizes, and if the authorization is actually appropriated, spends more money than we need to be spending in an era of $1.5 trillion per year budget deficit the -- defendants. mr. latta of ohio offered an amendment that simply said -- this bill must not increase the deficit. there was some discussion, mr. latta was asked to withdraw, the chairman, mr. waxman said he would work with mr. latta, there were kind of conversations at the staff

mr. barton for questions. >> thank you mr. chairman.ld i have watched the testimony in my office since i have been out of work, so i have listened to the opening statement and to the members questions. the members opening statements.y so i have been participating by video. my first question is generally to the panel. do any any of you allege that the incident that occurred should not have been foreseen, that it was such a catastrophic nature that the equipment and the technology should not have contained it? >> do you understand what i am saying? i see absolutely no response. >> could i respond? >> let me rephrase it. does anybody here believe that the blowout preventer and the eechnology employed in the procedures, if they had worked properly, could not have prevented this spill?chn >> representative barton, it is important to understand the design constraints of a blowout preventer. a blowout preventer is not a designed to close around significant debris.sign a blowout preventero is designed to close around a drill pipe and

mr. barton, questions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've watched the testimony in my office as i did other work and opening statements by the members so i have been participating by video. my first question is genal to the panel. do any of you allege that the incident that occurred should not have been foreseen, that it was such a catastrophic nature the equipment and technology should not have contained it? do you understand? i see absolutel no response. >> could i respond? >> yes. let me rephrase it. does anybody here believe that the blowout preventer and technology employed in the procedures, if they had worked proper properly, could not have prevented the spill? >> representative barton, it's important to understand the design constraints of a blowout preventer. a blowout preventer is not designed to close around significant debris. the blowout preventer is designed to close around drill pipe and most sizes of casing. but without knowing exactly what's inside the blowout preventer today, it is difficult to conclude the blowout pre

mr. barton, questions? >>thank you, mr. chairman. i've watched the testimony in my office as i did other work and opening statements by the members so i have been participating by video. my first question is generally to the panel. do any of you allege that the incident that occurred should not have been foreseen, that it was such a catastrophic nature the equipment and technology should not have contained it? do you understand? i see absolutely no reonse. >> could i respond? >> yes. let me rephrase it. does anybody here believe that the blowout preventer and technology employed in the procedures, if they had worked proper properly, could not have prevented the spill? >> representative barton, it's important to understand the design constraints of a blowout preventer. a blowout preventer is not designed to close around significant debris. the blowout preventer is designed to close around drill pipe and most sizes of casing. but without knowing exactly what's inside the blowout preventer today, it isifficult to conclude the blowout pr

mr. barton. mr. brayley for questions. >> thank you mr. chairman. my math certainly is not as good as the ranking member's because he is after all, an engineer. the briefing we received, we were inform these relief wells could take 90 days to complete. and if that is the case and we are not able to cap off the flow of oil and it gets worse, then we will easily in the next 90-day period exceed the quantity of oil spilled by the "exxon valdez." it is not a trivial problem to the people living and whoet their livelihood from the gulf coast. mr. mckabe, we have been reassud by the federal government and you stated today that bp will pay all necessary cleanup costs and is committed to paying all legitimate economic damages associated with this spill. is bp self-insured for all of these items of loss and damage? >> yes. >> so your corporation will be on the hook. it has not insured any of that risk or reinsured any of that risk is that correct? >> that's correct. >> one of the things i am concerned about is reports that have come out recently, mr. newman,

mr. barton. mr. barton: thank you, mr. speaker. i'like to thank chairman skelton, ranking member mckeon, and subcommittee chair sth, for all of the contributions to this bill. this bill was voted out of committee by unanimous vote because maintains an objective of balancing the health and capabilities of the currenforce. i also want to really thank the staff for their professionalism, dedication and extraordinary hard work this year. an engineer with 20 patents and 20 years of experience and 17 years in the armed services committee, i can assure you that the defense department's own data provides the proof that congress must continue to appre the alternative engine for the joint strike fighter. which will ultimately 95% of all of our fighting aircraft. this competition is crucial for our national security and that of our allies because the orange engine awarded and you noncompetitive contract is 21 months behind schedule and according to g.a.o. is estimated to be $2 billion over buet. that's a 52% increase and one of the main reaso

mr. barton, opening statement, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think chairman waxman took his time and my time. he certainly gave an extensive statement. i'm just going to submit my statement for the record and make a few extemporaneous remarks. i share chairman waxman's concern about finding this probl problem. i'm not omnipotent, though. less complicated. it's easy to sit u here on the podium and point fingers and demand results and act as if we know what the answers are, but that's not howife is and that's not how engineering is. it's in the best interest of nhtsa to solve this problem as quickly as possible. it's obviously the best interest of toyota. and the entire automobile industry. i agree with chairman waxman that i don't believe this is a sticky pedal floor mat problem, but having said that, trying to find a bug in millions of lines of software or find the glitch in a hardware system for the electronic ignition and steering system is very, very difficult. i am happy that nhtsa got the vehicle that purchas the vehicle or obtained the

mr. barton, opening statement, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think chairman waxman took his time and my time. he certainly gave an extensive statement. i'm just going to submit my statement for the record and make a few extemporaneous remarks. i share chairman waxman's concern about finding this probl problem. i'm not omnipotent, though. less complicated. it's easy to sit up here on the podium and point fingers and demand results and act as if we know what the answers are, but that's not how life is and that's not howngineering is. it's in the best interest of nhtsa to solve this problem as quickly as possible. it's obviously the best interest of toyota. and the entire automobe industry. i agree with chairman waxman that i don't believe this is a sticky pedal floor mat problem, but having said that, tryingo find a bug in millions of lines of software or find the glitch in a hardware system for the electronic ignition and steering system is very, very difficult. i am happy that nhtsa got the vehicle that purchased the vehicle or obtained the v

mr. barton challenged both toyota and nhtsa to get to thee bottom of this proolem and to do so with a sense of clarrty and in toyoot's approach tt the sudden, and anticipatedd of%- acceleration. when the ranking memmer stated at the conclusion of his remarks today that he waaspleased that they had hired an iidependent the representations they made thattit had hired exponent and given it a mission to et to the bottom of this problem with an unlimited budget. the ooly proolem with that perception is that it is contrary to the documents that i information that were ade atprr our last hearing. the documents that we have been provided with show that toyota's trial lawyers, not toyota, work on december 7, 2009,,and did not engageeexponent for the purpose of getting to the bottom -pof this problem,,but for he purpose of defending class-- action claims filed against toyota. that is the probllm wwth toyyta's response since our last hearing. if you ookkat what has been of the sole witness whoedibilit- testified on the possible problem of sudden, and anticcpated acceleration in tooota's vehicles. we n