Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON

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

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), who is an original cosponsor of the amendment and has worked very hard on it.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I still have.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, we have a great piece of legislation before us today. Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone have been great leaders in shepherding dozens of opioid-related bills through the Energy and Commerce Committee. This particular bill, H.R. 6, is the crown jewel of all that legislation. We all know what a scourge the opioid epidemic is. Since 2015, more Americans have died annually from opioid overdoses than from the AIDS epidemic at its peak. The amendment that is before us today is very simple. It requires the FDA, after consultation with all the stakeholders in open meetings and workshops, to develop some opioid prescription guidelines based on hard evidence. This amendment gives the FDA 2 years to develop these guidelines. It requires the FDA to post the guidelines on their web page and to send the guidelines to the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House and to the Education and Workforce committee over in the Senate. It is a bipartisan amendment. Congresswoman Annie Kuster of New Hampshire and Congressman Mark Meadows of North Carolina have both worked with myself and other members of the committee to develop this amendment. Opioids are a little bit different than some of the other drugs that are abused and lead to addiction in that most people are exposed to opioids the first time because of a prescription. They have some sort of acute pain that opioids can help manage and in prescribing these opioids the doctors are trying to help alleviate the pain. But everyone reacts to opioids somewhat differently, and sometimes what is acceptable in terms of the dosage for one individual is not acceptable with another individual. These guidelines will, again, be based on facts, be based on evidence. They are advisory only. We are not trying to intervene in the doctor/patient relationship. It will still be up to the doctor to determine what is best for the patient. But at least the doctor will have some fact-based guidelines with which to make the decision on what level to prescribe these opioids if, in fact, opioids are necessary. To quote the head of the FDA, Dr. Scott Gottlieb: ``Without evidence- based dosing recommendations at the point of care to support and inform rational prescribing, we're at serious risk of both undertreating some patients who could benefit from opioid therapy, and overtreating a lot of patients who are then placed at a higher risk of addiction.'' I will say that the amendment has drawn some concern, or at least interest, from the stakeholders, the chairman, the ranking member, myself and others are committed to working on this as it goes through the process. If we can fine-tune the amendment in some way, we are willing to at least consider that. But as it is constructed today, Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and I hope that the body will adopt it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the pending legislation before us. I believe it is very important that we show that we do want to address this issue, and I think the Goodlatte-McCaul bill does that in a humane way. Now, we have this issue of separation of children that has arisen at the border just in the last week or so. The Trump policy is not any different on paper than the Obama policy was. What is different is the way it has been covered, and President Trump has realized that something needs to be done differently and has signed an executive order yesterday to that effect. I personally think that we ought to go back to the original policy where, if you wanted political asylum, you applied at the embassy or the consulate in your home country. And if you bring your children, and you march them across the deserts of Mexico, and you bring them all the way to the Texas border, you do get a court hearing, but I would say that we give that court hearing back in their country of origin. And if we have to send them back at taxpayer expense, we deduct the cost from existing aid packages that we are giving to those home countries. That way, they don't have to come all the way to the Texas border or the California border or the Arizona border or the New Mexico border in order to get their day in court. They wait in their home country, and then they get their day in court there. Nobody wants to separate families, but it is the parents who bring the children with them. It is not the United States Government that is forcing those parents to try to come to this country illegally and bring their children. The Goodlatte bill funds border security. It begins to solve some of the issues of the lottery system. I personally think it is much better to have a merit-based immigration system than a lottery system where you just happen to, luck of the draw, get a come-into-the-United-States card. I think this is a good piece of legislation, and I hope we pass it this afternoon.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of the new head football coach at Ennis High School, Coach Sam Harrell. Coach Sam Harrell was born in 1975 in Seminole, Texas. He went to high school in Brownwood, Texas, where he was valedictorian. He became, the first time, the high school coach at Ennis back in 1994. Over the next 15 or 16 years, he won three State championships, went to the semifinals twice, was Texas High School Coach of the Year in 1999, became head of the Texas High School Coaches Association, and was in the Texas High School Football Hall of Fame. But in 2005, he came down with multiple sclerosis, which was not treatable by conventional therapy. He had to go out of the country for some stem cell treatments. Those were successful. He moved back to this country, continued to live in Ennis, Texas, and stayed active in the community. And about 2 weeks ago, the school board and school superintendent named him, again, to be the head football coach at Ennis High School. He is a very great coach, but he is also a greater man. He is very Christian. He is good with the kids. He is just an absolute stellar individual. Congratulations to Coach Sam Harrell, who is, once again, head football coach for the Ennis Lions, who have five State championships in their history.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. I thank Congressman Olson for his leadership as vice chairman of the subcommittee and a tireless leader on behalf of energy in this country. Also, I want to thank Congressman Johnson for his strong efforts and also compliment him on his playing in last week's Congressional Baseball Game. Congressman Duncan was also on the team and played well as shortstop. Oil was discovered in Pennsylvania back in the mid-1800s. As the oil industry began to develop, they more and more would run into what we would today call associated gas. Every now and then while drilling for oil they would hit a well that didn't have any oil, but all it had was what today we call natural gas. They didn't know what to do with it. They used the oil to make kerosene, lubricants, and home heating oil and things like that, but they didn't have a real purpose for natural gas. So they would just flare it, just literally in the field, light a match, put a flare pipe up and flare it. As time went on, they discovered that it had a fairly high Btu energy content, and they discovered a way to contain it, to store it, and to transport it through pipelines. Because it was a gas, it was not a liquid in its natural state, so while it was not as valuable as oil, it had enough value that it was worth looking for and worth keeping. You rock along and you rock along, and in the 1950s and 1960s, we began to set price controls on natural gas in interstate commerce. The Federal Government would regulate the price and as a consequence people stopped looking for it, because it wasn't economic to find it unless you could find a well that you could sell in intrastate commerce, within the State. When I ran for Congress in 1984, I ran on the platform of repealing what was called the Natural Gas Price Act of 1978 where Congress had set a price control on interstate natural gas in some cases as low as 2 cents per 1,000 cubic feet. Gas in the intrastate market, deep gas, was selling as high as $15 per 1,000 cubic feet. There is a big difference between $15 and 2 cents. One of my first accomplishments in Congress under President George Herbert Bush, the first President Bush, was to see the NGPA repealed. The Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 was repealed, and it was my amendment that did that. So I was very proud of that. Rock along a few more years, and in 2005, I was chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and we were doing a major energy bill, the Natural Gas Policy Act of 2005. We did a lot of things in that bill. We felt at that time that there was going to be a shortage of natural gas in this country. Some of the States, States like Massachusetts, California, and New York, were trying to prohibit import terminals for natural gas, for liquefied natural gas, LNG, being built. The States would not give the permits. So in the infinite wisdom of the Congress, we passed, as a part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a section, an amendment to the bill, that gave ultimate decisionmaking authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. Because we thought we were going to need to build these import terminals to import natural gas and the States were going to try to thwart it, we required a consultation with the States. The States had to be involved in the process, but the ultimate decision would be made by the Federal Government under the auspices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. A funny thing happened, Mr. Speaker. Some oil producers and gas producers down in Texas--one of them was a Texas Aggie, a guy named George Mitchell--decided that you had all these shale formations, and there were hydrocarbons in them, but they were like rock. Literally, if you look at a core sample of some of these shale formations, which you all had mentioned today in this Special Order, it is just like solid-- it is solid rock. George Mitchell and others decided, by golly, we can get natural gas out of that if we fracture the rock under pressure and create tiny little cracks where natural gas can escape from. Come to find out it worked. Then they also decided: Do you know what? Instead of drilling the classic vertical well, what if we bent the drill bit at a 90-degree angle and drilled horizontally? Son of a gun if that didn't work too. So the combination of hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling made all of these shale formations economic, and the result was an absolute bonanza of natural gas available at economically recoverable prices in the United States of America. Congressman Johnson has mentioned some of the formations up in his part of the country, the Marcellus and the Utica. Of course, Mr. Olson talked about the Eagle Ford shale down in Texas, the Barnett shale in my part of Texas. All over this country--Pennsylvania, even in New York, California, Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, Arkansas, Ohio, and Kansas--there are shale formations--literally almost everywhere in the United States--and in most of those shale formations, it is economically recoverable to drill for natural gas--and in some cases for oil also--but tonight we are talking about natural gas. Funny things happened. We didn't need to import natural gas. We had so much of it, we could export it. We used that provision we put in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to begin to license, not import terminals but export terminals. Congressman Olson, Congressman Johnson, and Chairman Walden have talked--and I am sure Mr. Bucshon and Mr. Duncan will talk later--about the economic consequences of that. We are exporting or going to export about 2 billion cubic feet a day this year of liquified natural gas. We are going to quadruple that in the next few years. If you look at the economic value of that, if you assume that you are selling it overseas about $4 per 1,000 cubic feet, this year we will export three- quarters of a trillion dollars--a trillion dollars is a thousand billion. And not in the near future, we are going to be exporting several trillion dollars worth of natural gas every year, hundreds of thousands of jobs, just an economic--I don't know what you would call it--a bonanza. It is not a windfall because it is not luck. It is hard work. It is American ingenuity and American technology. It is revolutionizing the energy markets. As has been pointed out, we are also beginning to export oil as a consequence of the ban being repealed for crude oil exports. That is a story for another Special Order. The future for natural gas in this country as a source of fuel is unlimited. The economic benefits are obvious, but there is another benefit, and it is the ability to export freedom. When we export our natural gas, in many cases we are exchanging the source of the supply from a totalitarian--not quite totalitarian, but certainly not a totally democratic country like Russia--with a free country like the United States. Now, it has been mentioned that Qatar, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia are also large exporters of natural gas, and they are allies of the United States, friends of the United States. But they don't have, as of yet, the purely democratic institutions, the totally free markets, and the free market capitalistic system that we have here. So when we send our natural gas overseas, we are also sending to the countries that use it, economic, and in some cases, political freedom. They cannot be held hostage to sources of supply that don't have the same democratic values that we do. So, as Congressman Johnson pointed out earlier, the World Natural Gas Conference is here in Washington next week. A number of us will participate in that conference. It is really a tribute to the natural gas industry in the United States that they have used the American innovative spirit and American technology to create a product which brings benefits economically not only here but overseas, and it really helps, in my opinion, put freedom in the driver's seat. So this is a great Special Order. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Olson for leading it and the other members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for participating. I am proud to be a part of this group.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, when I was a little boy, I used to read comic books, and one of them I read was Superman. In the Superman comic books, way back in the 1960s, Superman had an alterego that lived on Bizarro World. In Bizarro World, everything was a little bit off-kilter. When I listen to my sincerely good friends on the minority side, I think they are on Bizarro World. I know they mean well, but they are not seeing the same planet I am seeing. I have told this story a number of times about my brother John at the age of 40 having liver cancer. He had exhausted all conventional therapy. He was given less than 3 months to live. Being a Member of Congress and on the Energy and Commerce Committee, I had access to the National Institutes of Health and the FDA. I called, and I said: Are there any experimental programs that you could get my brother into that might help him? They checked, and they had a clinical trial, I believe, in San Antonio, Texas. We called down, and they got him into it. But they told him: This is experimental. It has helped a lot of people so far, but it doesn't help everybody. And if it doesn't help you, it accelerates your disease. He and his wife prayed about it, and his mother and myself and his brother and sister, and we all decided, why not? They put John in the trial, and it didn't help him, but we were at peace because we had used every available remedy that we could to try to help him. This bill--which has passed the Senate, and if we pass it today, it goes to the President and it is going to be signed this week--gives patients, if their doctors approve, the right to try. It has to be an investigational drug that is in an FDA clinical trial that has passed phase one, which has proved that it is nontoxic. It gives them the right to try. There is no downside to this. This could become law. It would give a statutory right to try at the Federal level. Why in the world my friends on the minority side have a problem with--it passed the Senate unanimously, which means, under the current Senate, 49 Democrats voted for it by a voice vote. There is no downside to it. The FDA is still in control of what drugs are passed through this phase one clinical trial. And the doctor has to recommend it, and the patient has to accept it. So I hope we will vote ``yes.''

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, the bill has already passed the House on a bipartisan vote. I think I am right that it passed with 261 votes the last time we sent it. The House bill is a little bit better bill than the Senate, but the Senate bill is better than no bill. So please vote ``yes'' when the time comes this afternoon.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. You are going to have a way to begin, if this bill becomes law, to get the waste that is now stored on-site at deactivated, in some cases, nuclear power plants, consolidated to interim storage, make a decision on Yucca, ``yea'' or ``nay,'' and if it is ``yea'' then begin that process. This is a very good effort. It should pass the House, it should pass the Senate, and the President should sign it. And then we will finally, after almost 40 years, begin to solve high-level nuclear waste issues in America. I thank both the leaders on this bill, and I hope we get a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I can't think of a more unrewarding, difficult, fruitless issue to be asked to be the leader on than trying to find a solution to high-level nuclear waste. Can you imagine if, when you get elected to Congress, you are called into the Speaker's office or the minority leader's office and said: Now, I know you are young and bright and everything, but we want you to take the lead on something that we haven't been able to solve in 30 years. Well, that is what John Shimkus and Congressman Tonko have been tasked to do. There is not a more unpleasant issue in the 30-something years I have been in the House than this issue. Having said that, it is probably one of the most important issues to solve. We have, at one time, over 100 operating nuclear reactors. They generate electricity every day, and they use and eventually consume their nuclear fuel rods. And when they have been used up, you can't put them on the curb and tell the trash to pick them up. Now, Mr. Tonko and Mr. Shimkus have worked, not just this Congress, but the last Congress, and in the case of John Shimkus, probably the last six Congresses, seven Congresses, to try to solve this. We have a bipartisan bill today. I predict it is going to get in the neighborhood of 260 to maybe 300 votes. It solves the problem. And the key, in my opinion, to what they have done is that they have allowed for an interim storage facility in a State that approves it beforehand. You are going to have States compete to accept this high-level nuclear waste on an interim basis, and you make a path forward to finish the licensing process, or make a negative determination in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Speaker, almost 34 years ago, in January 1995, I stood right over there, held up my right hand with my 2-year-old daughter, Kristin, took an oath to defend this country and this Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And as soon as I had taken the oath of office to be a Member of the House of Representatives, I walked over to the hopper and put in the Barton tax limitation balanced budget amendment. It was H.J. Res. 33, I believe. That was almost 34 years ago. At that time, the national debt was less than $2 trillion. Today, it is over $20 trillion. In the time that I have been in the House, we have had three or four balanced budgets on a cash flow basis, so that means we have had 30 unbalanced budgets. We have piled almost $19 trillion on our children and our grandchildren's backs with no hope to ever repay. The balanced budget constitutional amendment is not a panacea. It doesn't solve all of our problems, but it is a step in the right direction. I have a few issues with this particular balanced budget amendment. It is not as strong as I would like it to be, but I commend the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for bringing it to the floor for a vote. It is a positive first step. It is not compassionate, Mr. Speaker, to spend money we don't have and keep adding deficits that we will never repay. There is always an inexhaustible demand for more Federal dollars. At some point in time, we have to start the process of living within our means and, believe it or not, repaying what we have already borrowed. This constitutional amendment, again, it is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. I urge its passage by a two-thirds vote to send it to the Senate, hopefully, for a similar two-thirds vote.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my friends on the minority talk about the reasons they are opposing this bill, and a normal piece of legislation that would have some merit didn't go through regular order, things of this sort. But, Mr. Speaker, when the house is burning down and you need the fire department, you don't ask if they followed proper procedure to get somebody out there to put out the fire. My brother had liver cancer at the age of 44. He had tried every conventional therapy known to modern medicine, and it wasn't working. Now, he had a brother, myself, who was a subcommittee chairman of the committee of jurisdiction over the FDA. I contacted the FDA, and we got him in a special protocol for an investigational drug that was under approval. It wasn't approved. And the doctors and the people at the FDA told my brother and his family: If it works, it is going to really help you. But if it doesn't, you are going to die sooner. Well, he was going to die anyway, Mr. Speaker. So he signed the informed consent and he took the drug and it didn't work, but he had that last shot. Now, I don't know what this debate about false hope is. When you have no hope, perhaps false hope is better than none at all. All this bill does is let people who have no other hope for conventional therapy, if a drug has at least passed stage one at the FDA approval process, and their doctor thinks it will help them, if they give an informed consent, they can try it. Now, my friends on the Democratic side are correct that, most of the time under the existing protocol, the FDA approves it without a problem. But why should the FDA approve it if you are about to die anyway? That is what this bill does. By the way, it passed the Senate with unanimous consent. Now, that is a miracle in itself. Let's pass it here in the House and give hope a chance for these patients who are terminally ill and have no hope at all today.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Appropriations Committee chairman for yielding me time. I rise in support of this continuing resolution. Obviously, we would rather fund the government for the entire year before the start of the fiscal year, but that is in a perfect world, and one thing that the Congress has never been accused of is being a perfect world. So we are here dealing in the real world. To my good friend from Connecticut who just spoke, and she is my good friend, I would point out that the bill before us doesn't cut money from the Prevention Fund. It directs money from the Prevention Fund to spend on healthcare programs. In other words, it is taking some discretion from the executive branch and directing that spending that Congress thinks it should be spent for. One of the programs that we are going to fund for 2 years is the community health centers. Twenty-four million people each year get their healthcare from these community health centers, and one of them is in my home county, the Hope Clinic. Its main facility is in Waxahachie, Texas. But in my hometown of Ennis, we have the Nell Barton Hope Clinic Annex. These two facilities in Ellis County this year are providing healthcare for over 10,000 Ellis Countians. This is not exotic care. It is checkups, screenings, mammograms, and all the odds and ends that you have in your basic healthcare facilities. If they need more specific treatment, they are referred to specialists in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. But for the 10,000 citizens of Ellis County who depend on the Hope Clinic for their healthcare, this is a big bill. In fact, the executive director of the Hope Clinic was in my office today, saying: We want to expand, but we don't know if we are going to have the funds. We really need to get some certainty. That is what this bill is all about. So I rise in strong support, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the CR later this evening.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from the Garden State of New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), my good friend, just told you all the things that weren't in this bill that he wished were. My distinguished chairman, Mr. Walden, just whispered in my ear that we have put everything you talked about in bills, subcommittee, full committee, and on the floor, and you voted against them every time this year, every time. Now, where I come from, you vote for what is in the bill, not what is not in the bill. I wished we had a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution in this bill. I wish we fully funded our military for the rest of the year in this bill. I wish we, by an act of Congress, gave Texas A&M the national championship in football in this bill. That is not going to happen. What is in this bill? We fully fund the Children's Health Insurance Program for every State of the Union and the territories for 6 years; never been done before. Fully fund children's health insurance for every State and territory in the Union for 6 years, at existing levels, and it increases each year for the next 6 years. It is fully paid for, fully offset. Not every Democrat, but almost every Democrat, has voted against that already twice, and if they vote against it this evening, they will vote against it for the third time. I am the manager of the Republican baseball team. If you strike, if you miss it three times, it normally means you are out. I hope that some of my friends on the minority side will, tonight, vote with us to fund SCHIP and to fund the government for the next month. I am one of the Republicans who support DACA. I am on the Dream Act. I am also on the Republican alternative. I would love to vote for DACA, but the deadline for DACA is not until March. The SCHIP programs expired in September. We need to pass this CR and send it to the Senate. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I am one of the few Members that was here back in 1986 when we had the last major tax cut before this body. The President was Ronald Reagan and the Speaker of the House was Tip O'Neill. They worked together on a bipartisan basis to cut taxes across the board. The result was the economic growth of the late 1980s and the early 1990s, up until the early 2000s, when we had 9/11. It is one of the best votes that I have ever taken as a Member of this body. Well, now we are here on another major tax bill. The problem this time around is that there is no bipartisanship. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? It is not because the Republicans don't want to be bipartisan. It is because the Democratic leadership this time around has just said no. This tax bill is a good bill. The distinguished gentleman from Vermont who just spoke is correct in that it is not revenue neutral. But, Mr. Speaker, revenues are at an all-time high. We are going to raise more money this year than we have ever raised before at the Federal level. Let me repeat that: raise more money than we have ever raised before at the Federal level. Isn't it time to give hardworking Americans a little of that money back? That is what this bill does. It cuts rates for every working American. Let me repeat that: it cuts rates for every working American. No matter what your tax rate is today, under this bill, it is going to be lower if you are an individual. If you are a corporation, it is going to be lower. If you are one of these passthroughs, it is going to be lower. Every American who is paying taxes today is going to pay less taxes starting January 1, 2018. That is a good deal. That is a good deal. We are cutting taxes across the board for every working American. We repeal the individual mandate under ObamaCare. Unfortunately, it doesn't kick in until 2019, but we still repeal that. This is a good bill. It is a historic bill. It is a bill that everybody in this Chamber will benefit from, regardless of whether you vote for it or vote against it. So when the time comes this afternoon to vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' I am voting ``yes'' for America. I am voting ``yes'' for America's future. I am voting ``yes'' for every working American who is paying taxes today. Let's put more money back in their pocket. Let's double the rate of growth for the economy. Let's put more Americans at work. Let's show some faith in the American people, vote ``yes.''

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, we have talked a lot today on the floor about the children's component of this bill, the S-CHIP. It is a good program. It covers about 45 percent of the low-income children in Texas. It is a very worthwhile program and needs to be reauthorized and funded. I also want to talk about the community health centers. In Ennis, Texas, there is the Nell Barton Hope Clinic Annex. Nell Barton was my mother. The Joe Barton Family Foundation purchased a building for the Hope Clinic, which is a federally funded health center that is primarily located in Waxahachie, Texas. Every day, several dozen low-income people go to the Nell Barton Hope Clinic. Over the course of the year, several thousand people go to the Hope Clinic in both Ennis and Waxahachie. This bill reauthorizes those health centers for 2 years. Now, my friends on the Democratic side, I am not sure what they are complaining about. This is a program that funds healthcare for children and for low-income people through the community health centers. It is fully offset, and funding is increasing, Mr. Speaker, not decreasing, but it is doing so in a way that it is offset. What is the big offset? I hope we vote for this bill when it comes up for a vote later today.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, today is the 19th anniversary, if you can call it an anniversary, of a shooting in the United States Capitol in which two Capitol Police officers, Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, were killed. They were defending the Capitol, and a gunman got in and was heading towards the majority leader at the time, Tom DeLay's office. And they, in defending that office, were shot and killed. The Speaker at the time and the Congress at the time established a Wounded Officers Fund, but they made it specific to those two fallen officers. As we all know, on June 14, we had another shooting, although it was at a baseball practice for the charity baseball game where the Republican Members were practicing out in Alexandria, Virginia. Two officers, Officers Bailey and Griner, were both seriously injured in defending the 20-some-odd Republican Members that were at practice that morning. What this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is simply take an existing fund that was established for two officers that were killed in the line of duty and open it up, now and in the future, for Capitol Police officers who were seriously injured in the line of duty defending the Capitol and defending the Members. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle), the Democratic manager, for being an original sponsor with me. I want to thank every member of the Republican and Democratic baseball teams who have signed on as original sponsors. I want to thank Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy, Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi, leadership on both sides of the aisle, for making it possible to bring this bill to the floor. We introduced it last Thursday, and we are voting on it tonight; and wonder of wonders, the Senate is probably going to vote on it tomorrow, and there is a chance the President will sign it this week. We are showing the American people that we can work together for a noble cause. As has already been pointed out, Officers Bailey and Griner both, at risk to their own lives, defended the Members, staff, and volunteers at that baseball practice on June 14. I watched Officer Bailey run past me directly at the shooter, risking his life, and two other Alexandria Police officers who had arrived on the scene assisted him. Officer Griner was wounded but was providing covering fire, and that is when they brought down the shooter. They are heroes. They have sustained injuries. They deserve some assistance. The American people have donated probably $600,000 or $700,000 to provide some assistance, and this technical change in the existing fund would allow that to happen. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Davis. I hope everybody can support this.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, it is the great State of Texas. I want to set the Record straight on that. I commend Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Rush for bringing this bipartisan bill the floor. All we hear is about how we don't get along, Mr. Speaker. Nobody is watching when we do get along. And all of the bills that are being debated and voted on on the House floor today are examples of bipartisanship at the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Mr. Upton, Mr. Rush, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Walden, and the other ranking members and subcommittee chairmen are to be commended for that. One of the bipartisan amendments, which was adopted in full committee on this bill, is a bipartisan amendment from Mr. McNerney, a Democrat from California, and myself, that deals with the cybersecurity and would suggest that, as these States provide these energy security plans to the Department of Energy, they include an assessment of cybersecurity. So I can't tell you that this is the most important amendment that has ever been added to a bill in our committee, but it is a very good amendment, a very positive amendment. As plans are developed, including an assessment of cybersecurity threats and solutions to those threats, it should make the grid better, more reliable, and help make our country safer. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3050. Again, I commend Mr. Upton and Mr. Rush for working together, and I hope the House very quickly passes this and sends it to the other body.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Pallone, along with subcommittee Chairman Burgess and subcommittee Ranking Member Green for their excellent leadership on this piece of legislation. If you look at the front page of The Washington Post this morning, you will see on the left-hand column the story about a miracle living drug to help cure cancer in children that have leukemia. In the legislation before us, as the chairman just pointed out, there is the RACE for Children Act, which was introduced by Congressmen McCaul, Butterfield, and Mullin, and which I am a original cosponsor, that will make it possible to help children sooner. This particular drug that is discussed on the front page of The Washington Post took decades to develop and has just now been approved. How many thousands of children have died while that drug was being developed? The legislation before us includes, as I said, the RACE for Children Act, which will make it possible to bring these innovative drugs to market much more quickly. Mr. Speaker, I commend all the leaders and the members of the committee for this bipartisan piece of legislation, as Mr. Pallone has just pointed out. I am proud to vote for it, and I encourage all Members of the House to do the same.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, last Thursday evening, we played the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. This is normally the time when the losing manager has to congratulate the winning manager. Over the last 10 years, I have become fairly proficient at congratulating Mr. Doyle. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to tell a lot of jokes because, as we all know, at the Republican practice the Wednesday morning before, an individual opened fire on the Republican team and wounded the majority whip, Mr. Scalise; both Capitol Police officers who were part of Mr. Scalise's security detail; and two volunteers who were assisting us in our practice. So I don't have a lot of jokes today, Mr. Speaker. I do want to congratulate Mr. Doyle and his team. They played fair and square. They were extremely gracious before the game. We had a unity prayer. We had a unity introduction of the players. The night before, Mr. Doyle and his team invited the Republican team, believe it or not, to the Democratic political headquarters. I went with my two sons. The food was great, and the fellowship was even better. So I do sincerely want to congratulate him and his players for playing the best game. They deserved to win. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Republican team. We had approximately 25 of our Members at the practice. Every one of them exhibited courage and composure. They all looked out for their fellow teammates. We had an equivalent number of staff and volunteers. We had two of the best Capitol Hill police officers it is possible to have. They risked their lives. I want to say this, and then I will yield to my good friend, Mr. Doyle. The shooter that attacked the Republican baseball team, Mr. Speaker, was attacking democracy. When we are at full strength on this floor, there are 435 of us. Every one of us is a winner. We get here because we have won an election. We get here because we have got the faith of approximately 600,000 or 700,000 people who are depending on us to be their voice for democracy. We argue. We debate. But as I said in one of my interviews, before our names is United States Representative. United. Last Thursday, at the baseball game, we were united. I could not be prouder of being a Member of this body, Mr. Speaker. I could not be prouder of the Republican team, including our MVP, Ron DeSantis; our honorary MVP, Steve Scalise; and every member of the Republican team. Would the members of the Republican team stand and let's acknowledge their heroism. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Michael F. Doyle).

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, May 20th, is the first anniversary of President Tsai Ing-wen's inauguration. Having met President Tsai twice during her first year in office, I would like to congratulate her and the people of Taiwan on this occasion. Taiwan has become a vibrant democracy, where power at the presidential level has been peacefully transferred from one political party to another three times--most recently in last year's election. Taiwan's democracy is a shining example for both the Asia-Pacific region, and for the world. At the same time, Taiwan has endeavored to be a good global citizen. Mr. Speaker, I treasure the U.S.-Taiwan relationship, which is one between like-minded friends who share the same values. I admire the distance the people of Taiwan have come in the face of many challenges. As a friend to Taiwan, I commend its people and President Tsai on this anniversary.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the House's attention two fine Texans who are sitting up in the House gallery, Ben and Dan Matheson. Ben has been on my Air Force advisory committee down in Texas for the entire 32 years that I have been in Congress. He and the other two members of that nominating committee have recommended to me over 100 young men and women whom we have nominated to the Air Force Academy and who are now serving, defending our Nation. His son is Dan Matheson, one of my best friends, a proud graduate of the University of Texas Law School, former head of the Texas State Fed office, and a successful practicing attorney in Austin, Texas. I am very proud to have their friendship, and I am glad to bring to the attention of the House these two fine Americans.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, mandates seldom work. Markets do work. My friends on the Democratic side of the aisle haven't pointed out that 19 million Americans have chosen to pay the tax penalty to the IRS, rather than be forced into one of these ObamaCare plans. They talk about all the people who have gotten coverage. Most of them got coverage when the bill that is now called ObamaCare expanded Medicaid to healthy adults and paid 100 percent of the cost to cover those individuals at a cost right now of about $70 billion a year. Mandates don't work; markets do. I choose less government mandate, more personal freedom. Vote for the rule; vote for the bill. Let's restore markets and freedom to health care in America.