Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. I want to thank the gentleman from Lubbock. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the Congressman from the 25th Congressional District of Texas, Mr. Roger Williams. Under the newest configuration, he is the only Congressman to ever represent that district, so they must love him.

Mr. BARTON. There is no proof of that. I know the Congressman actually states it as a fact, but I have repeatedly asked him to prove it, and he has absolutely failed. So that is an urban myth of the Fourth Congressional District.

Mr. BARTON. I want to thank you, Congressman. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the Congressman from the First Congressional District, deep east Texas, the soft-spoken Congressman Louie Gohmert.

Mr. BARTON. I thank Congressman Gohmert. I now yield to the gentlewoman that represents part of Dallas County in Dallas, Texas, the Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson, who comes from the same hometown as I do: Waco, Texas.

Mr. BARTON. I want to thank you, Congressman Johnson. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the Congressman from Fort Bend County, Sugar Land, Texas, a Navy pilot himself, as Ralph Hall was in World War II, the Honorable Pete Olson.

Mr. BARTON. Now I yield to the distinguished Congressman from, I believe, Flower Mound, Texas, in Denton County, the Honorable Michael Burgess.

Mr. BARTON. I now yield to Mr. Blake Farenthold, the Congressman from Corpus Christi, Texas.

Mr. BARTON. I now yield to Randy Weber, the Congressman from the 14th District from Friendswood, Texas.

Mr. BARTON. I now yield to the gentleman from the 14th District of Illinois, Congressman Hultgren.

Mr. BARTON. I would now like to yield to Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, the gentlelady from Houston, Texas.

Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman. I now yield to the gentleman from Round Rock, Texas, the distinguished John Carter.

Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman. May I inquire how much time I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today to honor an amazing life, and a legendary career. On November 6th, America lost one of the great innovators in medical technology and a dear friend of mine, Thomas ``Tommy'' Thompson. While Tommy Thompson may not be a household name, there is not one household in America who has not been touched by his life's work. Tommy was a dynamic medical device innovator whose passion in life was to improve the human condition. And in this pursuit he was immensely successful. But Tommy wasn't content with his own successes, he wanted to make sure that the countless doctors, engineers and other innovators in this field also had an environment where they could develop medical breakthroughs. Tommy was the type of leader who didn't just point out problems, he tirelessly fought to fix them. In 1992, he joined with a group of innovators to establish the Medical Device Manufacturers Association to give the innovative and entrepreneurial sector of the industry a strong and independent voice in the nation's capital. What started as a handful of medical technology companies has grown to nearly 300 members across the United States. Under Tommy's leadership, the association helped drive countless policies and regulations that improved patient care and innovation. For the past few years, Tommy discussed the devastating impact the medical device tax was having on innovators trying to develop the cures of tomorrow. Tommy was also a tireless advocate to ensure patients and physicians had access to the technologies they needed, and worked to remove barriers and roadblocks so that they could obtain the best care possible. There is no question that medical technology innovators today are standing on the shoulders of Tommy and all the passion and hard work he dedicated towards improving the innovation ecosystem. To honor Tommy, I will continue to work to repeal this tax. Tommy's passion also extended to helping organizations and individuals in his home state of Texas. He devoted countless hours to many of his favorite organizations there including the Fairhill School, the Foundation for Lovejoy Schools, and Phi Kappa Sigma at The University of Texas. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Betty and all his family and loved ones at this difficult time. We have all lost a great man whose love of improving patient care was second only to that for his family. At one time or another everyone wonders what kind of legacy our lives might produce, and what it is that future generations may say about our brief time here on Earth. Tommy never said it--he was too humble and too magnanimous--but I will: Tommy Thompson was a legend and a leader in the medical device industry, allowing patients around the world to live longer, healthier lives. He gave so much of his time, treasure and talents, never expecting anything in return. Whether helping a local school or giving time to mentor an engineer just starting in the field, Tommy cared about people and improving this world. That is his legacy. That is what he will always be known for. That is a legacy anyone would be proud of, and we will be forever grateful for all that Tommy did on behalf of patients and innovators. Thomas ``Tommy'' Thompson led a life dedicated to that old-fashioned notion that if you're focused on helping others, you truly can change the world. Tommy did change the world, and we are all better off thanks to his selfless passion and generosity.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee. First of all, let's try to define what this bill actually does. We have had a lot of rhetoric on the House floor the last 30 minutes or so. It is a pretty simple bill. It removes the President from the decisionmaking authority. He can sign the bill and it would become law; he cannot sign it after so many days and it can become law; or he can veto it--but he doesn't have to make the decision whether to build the pipeline or not. That is the first thing. It takes the President out of the decisionmaking loop, except for the fact that he has the option as the President of the United States to sign the bill into law, veto it, or to let it become law without his signature. Secondly, it says that if the bill does become law and the environmental groups still want to contest it, you get expedited judicial review so that we immediately get a decision. That is what the bill does. It is a simple bill. A lot of the Keystone pipeline has already been built. From some of the rhetoric on the floor, you would think that it hadn't even been started yet. The reason the State Department and the President are even in the loop is because it is an international pipeline. Having said that, the international part of it has been built. The connection between Canada and the United States has been built and is operational. The part that is in question is within the interior of the United States of America. If you were building a pipeline that wasn't connected to the Keystone pipeline as it exists, you wouldn't have to have the State Department review it and you wouldn't have to have the President make a decision. But because it is the continuation or in addition to an existing international pipeline, the State Department has to make a decision and, in this case, the President right now has to make a decision. It is an 800,000-barrel-a-day pipeline if we make it operational. That brings oil from Canada into the United States where it can go to any number of domestic refineries, or it could actually, as has been said, it could be exported potentially. But in all probability, they will get a better market price in the United States down on the Gulf Coast and they would prefer to sell it here. But the market would make that decision, Mr. Speaker. So, if at first you don't succeed, try, try, and try again. The House leadership, on a bipartisan basis, is going to send another bill on the Keystone pipeline to the other body. My understanding is that they are going to vote on it next week if it passes the House tomorrow, and then we will send it to the President. This would be a great Thanksgiving present for the American people, as has been pointed out: more job creation, more options for domestic refineries, potentially lower gasoline prices than they even are today for motorists and our consumers. It is a win-win-win. There is no group in America that opposes it. Republicans support it; Democrats support it; labor unions support it. The only group is the radical environmentalists that probably make up 2 or 3 percent of the population. I just don't understand it. I want to thank the committee of jurisdiction for bringing the bill to the floor, for the Rules Committee reporting out the rule. I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on the rule, and tomorrow I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on the bill.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3670) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to expand and clarify the prohibition on provision of inaccurate caller identification information, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I am the only other speaker left on my side, and I reserve the right to close. So I would yield to the gentleman from Utah or the gentlelady from New York if they wish to speak.

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, the Congress is not spoofing when we say we are going to do something about those individuals that do try to spoof the American public. As has been pointed out, we passed a law back in, actually, it was the 2009 act, but we passed it in 2010, the Truth in Caller ID Act, to mitigate the effects of caller spoofing. As you well know, you look on your caller ID and you see that an innocent or innocuous individual or company is calling you, as has been pointed out. It could be the police department, could be the Pizza Hut, could be almost anything, so you take the call and that is not what it is. In many cases they are trying to defraud our elderly in some scam or something like this. So we passed a law that we thought would handle it. But it needs to be updated, and that is what this bill does. As has been pointed out, it makes it illegal to initiate these calls from outside the United States. It makes it illegal to do it over the Internet with a Voice Over Internet Protocol-based system. And it also broadens the jurisdiction to include text messaging. As we well know, Mr. Speaker, text messaging is ubiquitous now on our Blackberrys and our iPads and iPhones and all of our personal telecommunication devices. This bill has bipartisan support. The subcommittee chairman, Mr. Walden, is an original cosponsor. The subcommittee ranking member, Ms. Eshoo of California, is a cosponsor. Chairman Emeritus on the Democratic side John Dingell is a cosponsor. I am an original sponsor. So this is one of these instances, Mr. Speaker, that Republicans and Democrats are united. Chairman Upton, the full committee chairman, and Mr. Waxman, the full committee ranking member, are totally supportive. There is every indication that, if this body passes this bill this evening, it will go to the other body, the United States Senate, and we fully expect it to pass it. This is one of those rare birds in this Congress that might actually be signed by the President of the United States. There is no known opposition to the bill. Our stakeholders, as Mr. Matheson has pointed out, support it. Google supports it. The FCC supports it. AT&T, CTIA, Microsoft, USTelecom, Vonage, Verizon, and AARP are just some of the more popularly known stakeholders that support the bill. So I rise in strong support, Mr. Speaker, that we unanimously pass H.R. 3670, the Anti-Spoofing Act of 2013, and send it to the Senate for its consideration. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions. I hope we will yield back some of that time. First, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the leadership you have exhibited, not just in the Rules Committee, but on this issue in general. You have been a longtime advocate of substantive immigration reform in a conservative way. You have been active this week in the Conference and in the Texas delegation as we attempt to move this legislation. And, of course, you have been very active this afternoon in the Rules Committee. I want to also compliment the leadership of the majority as we have tried to craft a compassionate conservative path forward. I happen to be an advocate of comprehensive immigration reform. I have a draft bill that I have been waiting until the right time to introduce, and, hopefully, get bipartisan support. I am not one of these ``just say no'' Republicans. Having said that, we have a crisis on our southern border because of some actions the President has taken in the past and some inactions that he is not taking now. We have got this terrible situation where thousands and thousands of young children--some unaccompanied, by themselves, others with adults--who have been flooding the southern border, allegedly some of them paying thousands of dollars to individuals who are allegedly related to the drug cartels. It is an unsustainable situation, Mr. Speaker. It can't go on. The bill that is going to be before the body later this evening targets funding to add additional judges to review these children on a case-by-case basis. It reverses current law so that children from noncontiguous countries are treated the same as the children from Canada and Mexico who perhaps attempt to come into the country without proper documentation. I don't think it is an inhumane thing to do, Mr. Speaker. I think it is actually the right thing to do. The bill before us is going to have funds to reimburse the States that have decided to deploy their National Guardsmen to the border. One of those States is my State of Texas. This bill would target funding to reimburse the State of Texas for the cost of deploying the National Guard. I think that is a good thing. The bill before us is going to be completely offset, taking money that has already been appropriated but not expended. The offsets are not fake, they are not: in the 10th year we will theoretically save some money that would have otherwise been spent. These offsets are for funds that have been appropriated and have been obligated but not used. Some of those funds are in the foreign aid accounts of the countries that are sending us some of their citizens, and I think that is appropriate. We can have a debate at the appropriate time on a more comprehensive package. That is obviously something that at some point I hope this body addresses. I am going to be an active, positive participant in that, Mr. Speaker. But for today, to solve the current situation on the border, this is a targeted package. It will be better than current law if it is enacted. It will improve the situation, I think, within the next 2 months. If it were to be enacted in its totality, you would basically not have the problem of the unaccompanied minor children or minors with adults that are flooding our borders. It is a conservative approach. I will tell my friends on the minority side, I happen to be proud of that. I believe that the body is going to pass this. I am going to vote for both bills, the appropriation supplemental and then the DACA bill that Congresswoman Blackburn has expressed leadership on and done such a good job on, and of which I am a cosponsor. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for giving me some time. I strongly support the rule, and I will vote for the underlying bills.

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, it is very rare that you have a constituent who reaches the century mark, but I have one, a young lady named Helen Maddox in Arlington, Texas, who will be celebrating her 100th birthday later this week. Helen was not born a native Texan, but she got there as soon as she could. She and her husband moved to Arlington, Texas, over half a century ago, and she has lived there ever since. Her husband is now deceased. Helen has been very active in the Republican Women, in numerous civic clubs, and has been a very strong personal friend of mine and also a political supporter. She will be celebrating her 100th birthday this week. On behalf of the United States Congress, I want to wish her the absolute very best birthday and hope that the next 100 are as happy and positive as her first 100 have been. Happy birthday, Helen Maddox, of Arlington, Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to what I just said. Honoring helen maddox on her 100th birthday Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special woman on a very special day--her 100th birthday. Helen Maddox was born on her family's small family farm in Romulus, Michigan on July 28, 1914. She was the youngest of three and admits that while she was surrounded by love, life back then wasn't always easy. There was always a long list of chores that included taking care of the animals and helping with the crops. Helen worked at a roadside stand selling fruits and vegetables and says her curly hair was a great marketing tool. People would stop because of her cute curls, and then buy something. Her parents were community leaders and that is a trait that rubbed off on Helen. Like many people who weren't lucky enough to be born in Texas, she moved there as an adult. She immediately became involved in the small, but growing community of Arlington, Texas. Back then it was a town of just 15,000, now it is close to 400,000. Helen Maddox played a role in making it a big city with a small town feel. She started attending city council meetings so she could keep up with what was going on and support city leaders. Helen founded the Arlington Women's Club in 1957 and it is still going strong. She also worked with longtime Mayor Tom Vandergriff to organize the YMCA. She and her late husband loved to travel, many times hitting the road in their Winnebago. Helen slowly got more involved in Republican politics. In 1986 she got an invitation to have tea at the White House with Nancy Reagan. When Arlington became part of my district 20 years ago, Helen was one of the first people to welcome me. She was 80 at the time, but still full of life and her love of Arlington and America was infectious. As she hits 100 she is still active in the community. I am proud today to say Happy 100th Birthday to my friend--Helen Maddox!

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special woman on a very special day--her 100th birthday. Helen Maddox was born on her family's small family farm in Romulus, Michigan on July 28, 1914. She was the youngest of three and admits that while she was surrounded by love, life back then wasn't always easy. There was always a long list of chores that included taking care of the animals and helping with the crops. Helen worked at a roadside stand selling fruits and vegetables and says her curly hair was a great marketing tool. People would stop because of her cute curls, and then buy something. Her parents were community leaders and that is a trait that rubbed off on Helen. Like many people who weren't lucky enough to be born in Texas, she moved there as an adult. She immediately became involved in the small, but growing community of Arlington, Texas. Back then it was a town of just 15,000, now it is close to 400,000. Helen Maddox played a role in making it a big city with a small town feel. She started attending city council meetings so she could keep up with what was going on and support city leaders. Helen founded the Arlington Women's Club in 1957 and it is still going strong. She also worked with longtime Mayor Tom Vandergriff to organize the YMCA. She and her late husband loved to travel, many times hitting the road in their Winnebago. Helen slowly got more involved in Republican politics. In 1986 she got an invitation to have tea at the White House with Nancy Reagan. When Arlington became part of my district 20 years ago, Helen was one of the first people to welcome me. She was 80 at the time, but still full of life and her love of Arlington and America was infectious. As she hits 100 she is still active in the community. I am proud today to say Happy 100th Birthday to my friend--Helen Maddox!

Mr. BARTON

Mr. BARTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, the full committee chairman, and I would like to enter into a little bit of a colloquy. I am an original cosponsor. I certainly want to prevent taxation of the Internet, but as you know, I represent one of the 36 districts in Texas, and in my district, my largest city is the city of Arlington, and they currently collect approximately $1 million a year in revenue from connection fees to the Internet in their city limits, and under this bill, that would be prohibited. I had been led to believe that we were going to have the same grandfather provision that we have had for the last 16 years. Apparently, that is not the case. Could the chairman enlighten me why we are not grandfathering existing local collection fees, and what might be done in conjunction with the other body if and when this goes to conference? I yield to the chairman.

Mr. BARTON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARTON. If the gentleman will allow me to be part of the process and inform me at such a time that it would be possible to offer an amendment or to work with you and the other body, I would certainly be more than willing to do that.