Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman. Briefly, the recent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Friday was unanimous, three Republicans, two Democrats; the old commissioners, the new commissioners. It is a price mitigation strategy that lets the market work, but it does not let any particular supplier manipulate the market. The partial version of this that was put in back in April has been working. This version, which goes 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, will help California and the West Coast this summer.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will continue to yield, this whole concept of sinks was something that back in the mid 1990s, when we began to negotiate Kyoto, was not even a variable. People had not even thought of this. And then, when it became apparent that our forestlands and our grasslands actually consumed CO2 and that we could be a country that on a net basis emitted no CO2 because we had large pinewood forests in the south and hardwood forests in the north and the grasslands and the cornfields in the Midwest, this caused consternation in the international environmental community, because under the very mechanism that they had negotiated, the United States, in their mind, walked away free. So as the gentleman pointed out, at the Hague this was the subject of intense negotiations to minimize the impact of sinks. But again, the sink is an issue that, using their terminology and their models and their variables, the United States should get tremendous amounts of credit, which is, again, one of the reasons this is a flawed process, because they have not really thought the science through.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Kristen Barton is 19 today. Her birthday party is going on as I speak. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. There is a train of thought that this would be a surrogate system to put the United States at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Now, do not hold me specifically to these numbers, because I do not have some of my briefing books before me as we engage in this special order, but my recollection is that of all the nations in the world that are involved in the Kyoto agreement, and it is around 160 to 170, there would be only 13 that would have to make any significant reductions in their emissions, and of that, the United States would be a huge majority. So nations like Iceland would have to make some reduction, Japan, Great Britain, Australia, the United States, there were a total of 13 out of 162, but over half the reduction would come from the United States economy. I have to exit, but I want to tell the gentleman I appreciate his taking this special order, and I think it is very timely and very important that the American people understand some of the facts and figures the gentleman is going to present.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the gentleman from Michigan having this Special Order at the request of the leadership. I think it is important to air the issue, so to speak, as we get into this debate. I am an official observer to the Council of Parties operating under the auspices of the United Nations. I was in Kyoto. I was in Buenos Aires. I was in Hague. I am planning at the moment to be in Bonn, Germany in July. I think there are some things that we need to make sure that the American people know about this. First of all, the economy that will be most affected in the entire world community, if we would implement this, is the United States economy. As the gentleman from Michigan pointed out, China, whose VOC emissions will exceed the United States within the next 10 years, would have to make no reductions. Mexico, which is a growing economy and our partner in NAFTA, would not have to make any reductions because they are considered to be a developing nation. India, the second most populous nation in the world, again with growing VOC emissions, would have to make no reductions because they are considered again to be a developing nation. So when we get right down to it, the Western European community, because the collapse of communism occurred after the base year that they are using to calculate the reductions, would make few, if any, because they have shut down the old coal plants in the Soviet Union and in behind the Iron Curtain. In Western Europe, they have gone more and more to nuclear power. So they have to make no reductions in their economy. It would be the good old U.S. of A. that would have to make these reductions. Under the protocol, a steel plant operating in Pennsylvania or in Illinois or in Indiana that would have to be shut down under the protocol, one could take it bolt by bolt, piece by piece, dismantle it, ship it to China or ship it to Mexico, put it back together, that same plant with the same emissions, and would be perfectly legal under the Kyoto Protocol. For that reason, it is not just Republicans like the gentleman from Michigan and I that oppose this. Good solid labor union Democrats like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) strongly oppose this. In fact, when they did the Byrd-Hagel amendment in the United States Senate, it passed 98 to 2 that we cannot implement Kyoto unless certain changes are made so that it does not negatively affect the United States economy. Second thing that the citizens of the United States need to understand about Kyoto is that the science is not settled. In fact, 2 years ago, 15,000 of the most eminent environmental scientists in the United States signed their names to a letter that I believe was sent to the President. It may have been sent to the Members of Congress. Fifteen thousand scientists said do not implement Kyoto because the science is not settled. Just within the last 6 months, research based on actual data in the Atlantic Ocean has come out that says the whole concept of global warming may be exactly wrong, could be totally 180 degrees wrong. So there are all kinds of reasons for us to take a go-slow approach on this. And I think that President Bush, when he said the Kyoto agreement would not be ratified, did exactly the right thing. I think the President and Secretary of State are going to work with Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to develop a new mechanism for environmental negotiations, not based on Kyoto, but based on sound science and based on economic interests of the United States vis-a-vis the rest of the world. I would think within the next year or so we will come up with a different mechanism that actually will enhance the environment and will enhance the world community. But the Kyoto agreement, as it is currently structured, is totally flawed. It would be very disadvantageous to the United States. And unless we want to go back to the economy like it was in the 1970s, as the gentleman pointed out, this is exactly the wrong agreement and should not be implemented in this country.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of National County Government Week, I rise today to speak on the importance of county government and to highlight the numerous contributions county governments make in the everyday lives of citizens. Today, counties fill an especially challenging role as they continue to meet the complex demands of modern society. In Texas, we have 254 counties that serve the needs of more than 18 million Texans. The responsiveness of county government to the needs of the community is a long-standing tradition in Texas. Texas law mandates, with certain exceptions, that all county courthouses be centrally located so that each citizen can travel to the seat, vote, and return home in a day. Most county seats fall within five miles of the county's center. The structure of Texas county govenunent has its roots in the ``municipality,'' the local unit of government under Spanish and Mexican rule. These large areas, embracing one or more settlements and rural territories, are the foundation of the governmental organization of our present day counties. The Texas Constitution declared counties as the functional agents of the state, or as an ``arm of the state.'' Unlike cities, the areas of responsibility authorized to counties are specifically spelled out in laws passed by the Legislature. Texas counties range in size from less than 100 residents to more than three million. Major responsibilities include county development planning; building and maintaining roads and recreational facilities; and in some cases, county airports; constructing and operating jails; At the heart of each county is the commissioners court. These members of the court collectively conduct the general business of the county and oversee financial matters. Each Texas county has four precinct commissioners and a county judge who serve on this court. Functions of the county, run by individuals employed by the commissioners court, include such departments as public health and human services, personnel and budget, and in some counties, public transportation and emergency medical services. Elected officials, found in most counties, include county attorneys, county and district clerks, county treasurers, sheriffs, tax assessor-collectors, justices of the peace, and constables. In the last twenty years, a growing number of federal and state responsibilities have been delegated or mandated to the local level, confirming the importance and necessity of local county governments in Texas. Each day, counties deliver a long list of services and work to respond to the ever-changing needs of our dynamic state. Counties across America provide solutions at the local level that help bring communities together. I believe this traditional form of local county government, which fulfills a multitude of services to communities, is truly indispensable to its citizens.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a strong supporter of this constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes on the American people. Until the last Congress, this was the Barton tax limitation constitutional amendment. I was very pleased and willing to let the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) become the original cosponsors in this Congress. As has been pointed out, when the Constitution was ratified in the late 1700s, there was a supermajority required to raise taxes. It was 100 percent because you could not have a Federal income tax. The Constitution did not allow it. As has been pointed out by the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in 1913 we changed the Constitution to say that income taxes were acceptable. The first income tax levied on the American people after that income tax was passed, about 99 percent of the American people paid no income tax because you had to have an adjusted income of over $3,000 cash; and most Americans in the early part of the 20th century did not have $3,000 cash income. But if you did, if you did, you paid 1 percent; 1 percent of income over $3,000. And if you were super-rich, in other words if you got up to where you had cash income over, I think it was, $50,000, you paid an additional 1 percent. Mr. Speaker, what does the American taxpayer pay today? The income tax levied on the American people had gone up at one point in time 9,000 percent. We got up to a 90 percent tax bracket. Now how is that possible? It is possible because it only requires 50 percent plus one vote in the House and 50 percent plus one vote in the Senate to raise your income taxes. That has been done repeatedly the last 100 years. What does this constitutional amendment do? It does not say that you cannot raise taxes; but it says if you are going to raise taxes, you need more than a bare majority. You need more than 50 percent plus one; you need two-thirds. Now our Founding Fathers knew that there would be times when we needed to do things that needed to be a superconsensus. To ratify treaties and to change the Constitution requires a supermajority vote. What is more important to require a consensus more than a bare majority than raising income taxes? It is interesting when you look at the opinion polls around the country, the States that have supermajority requirements to raise taxes, their taxes are lower. They are lower. States that do not have it, their taxes are higher. Mr. Speaker, we have used the States as a laboratory; and we have proven that it works at the State level. It would work here in Washington. If you look at interest groups, do you know that the interest group that most supports requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, it is not rich, country club Republicans, it is not soccer moms, it is male, head-of-household union members. Now they tend to vote for our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, which is fine. Eighty percent of them support a supermajority requirement to raise income taxes. That is the highest number of any segment of our country, 80 percent. So why is it that we cannot pass this in the House of Representatives? We want it, but to amend the Constitution you have to have a two-thirds votes. It is because some people in this body want to raise taxes. They want to spend more money. We are only going to spend $2 trillion this year. Let us vote for this tax amendment and send it to the Senate and get them to pass it.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this motion. It is fitting this motion was brought on October 31, because this is pure Halloween politics by the minority party designed to scare Americans a week before the Presidential election. The timing of the motion, and the study upon which this motion is based, are questionable at best. One week before an election, the Minority Staff of the Government Reform Committee releases a report criticizing the condition of Texas nursing homes. Some have tried to pass this study off as non-partisan. I have a hard time believing such a claim. This study was conducted unbeknownst to the majority staff at the Government Reform Committee. This was not an effort to accurately gauge the conditions of Texas nursing homes. This was purely political. The Gore-Lieberman website posted the study and commentary on it before it was released to Majority Members of the Government Reform Committee. It also breeds suspicion that days before this report was released, the Democratic National Committee began an advertising campaign on the state of nursing homes in Texas. If this was a non-partisan study then are we supposed to believe that it was a mere coincidence the study was released on the heels of these ads being run. Even if we are to blindly accept such a coincidence, the release of the study to the Gore-Lieberman campaign before it was given to Majority Members of the Government Reform Committee clearly demonstrate that this study was nothing more than partisan political propaganda. More disheartening than the timed release of this study was the facts ascertained and the conclusions reached by the study are a clear misrepresentation of the conditions of nursing homes in Texas. I agree that we must take steps to improve the care that patients receive in nursing homes. However, as a Texan I take great umbrage at this one- sided hatchet job designed to embarrass my state. If we look at the objective facts we find a much different picture of Texas nursing homes than painted by the Minority Staff Report. In September 2000, the non-partisan General Accounting Agency (GAO) issued a comprehensive study that directly disputes the claims made in the partisan minority report. The GAO concluded that the percentage of homes in Texas cited for harm and immediate jeopardy deficiencies were half what the partisan Minority study claims. The Minority Staff study claims that over 50 percent of the nursing homes in Texas had violations that caused actual harm to residents or placed them at risk of death or serious injury. According to the September GAO report, the percentage of homes with actual harm and immediate jeopardy deficiencies from January 1997 to July 2000 were only 25 percent--half what the Minority report stated. We must work to reduce this number, but it also clearly demonstrates how the Minority report attempted to overstate the problem in a partisan effort to embarrass Texas. The University of California San Francisco Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences conducted a nationwide study of nursing facility deficiencies in which Texas nursing homes rated better than most other states. The study examined the percentage of nursing homes with deficiencies in ten different areas; Comprehensive Assessments, Accident Prevention, Housekeeping, Dignity, Physical Restraints, Food Sanitation, Accidents, Quality of Care, Pressure Sores, and Comprehensive Care Plans. In Calendar Year 1998, the last year of the study, Texas nursing homes had lower indices of deficiencies than the normal average in eight of these categories. In the percentage of Quality of Care deficiencies, Texas nursing homes are below the national average, while a state like Connecticut is a staggering 19 percent above the national average, and above the national average in four of ten categories. In the percentage of Food Sanitation deficiencies, Texas is half a percentage point above the national average. However, Tennessee is over eight percent above the national average in Food Sanitation deficiencies. Instead of attempting to misrepresent the Texas record for political gain, the Gore-Lieberman ticket should be focusing their efforts on improving nursing home conditions in their home states. In Texas we understand there are problems within our nursing home system, and we have taken steps to correct them. In 1995 and 1997, Texas passed legislation that instituted: new requirements for background checks on nursing home operators, new enforcement measures on non-compliant nursing homes, and mandated standards for quality of life and quality of care. A facilities compliance with these standards must be made available to the public and explained to nursing home residents as well as their next of kin. According to a March 1999 GAO report on nursing homes, Texas spends more than other states on compliant expenditures per home. It also shows that the only state with more compliant visits per 1,000 beds is Washington. Many experts believe that compliant investigators are more important than the standard surveys required not less frequently than every 15 months. This is believed to be this case because complaints can be a good indicator of a current problem in a facility, that a compliant visit comes as a surprise and thus gives surveyors a more accurate picture of what is going on in a facility. We passed the Boren Amendment in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to remove states Medicaid spending from the crippling effects of court mandated reimbursements. The Boren Amendment was enacted to provide more fiscal discipline in the Medicaid program. However, the vague wording of the amendment subjected states to numerous court orders that led to Medicaid spending spiraling out of control. A major proponent of eliminating the Boren Amendment was President Clinton. The President, in an August 1999 speech to the National Governors Association, stated, ``We've waived or eliminated scores of laws and regulations on Medicaid, including one we all wanted to get rid of, the so-called Boren Amendment.'' Eliminating this provision was a bipartisan effort which both parties agreed to. If the Boren Amendment is not working, and the proof is not there that it isn't, then let's follow the procedures dictated by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. In this statue a provision was included that asks the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a study on access to, and quality of, the services provided to beneficiaries subject to the rate setting method used by the states. That report is due 4 years after the enactment of B.B.A. 97 which puts us in August of next year. This report will give accurate information on the effects on repeal of the Boren Amendment, and if there is a need to have it reinstated. This is Halloween, but don't be fooled. If we need to reexamine the repeal of the Boren Amendment lets wait until the Secretary is done with the report. This motion is not about patient care. This is about election year politics, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on the motion to instruct just withdrawn by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman withdraw without unanimous consent?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I want to commend the two subcommittee chairmen for reporting the bill under the budget caps. If it were a clean bill, I would support it. Unfortunately, there was a rider that has been attached from the other body dealing with privacy that is an almost total rollback of privacy protection for our Social Security numbers. The Gregg amendment, as amended in the Senate, which was added to this legislation last Thursday night in the dead of night, with no public debate that I can find, creates four new exceptions for the use of Social Security numbers for commercial uses. These four exceptions are so large that one can literally drive a truck through them. I do not think we need to be adding more ability to use our Social Security numbers under the guise of trying to protect the use of Social Security numbers. For that reason, I am very, very much against this bill, and I ask Members to vote against the bill.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services for his response.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this will be very brief also. I want to clarify an aspect of section 3303 of the conference report which provides in part for the cleanup of uranium mill tailings from the former Atlas uranium mine. The bill language directs the Secretary of Energy to prepare a remediation plan with the help of the National Academy of Sciences to determine the right way to remediate this site. Elsewhere in this provision is other bill language which appears to define remediation as being relocation of the tailings pile. I am concerned that someone might view this language as authorizing removal of the tailings pile regardless of the findings of the NAS or the remediation plan developed by the Secretary. My understanding is that we are authorizing an objective threshold determination by the Secretary of Energy, with the advice of the National Academy of Sciences, on whether or not the Atlas pile needs to be moved, and that only if a determination to move the pile is made would the condition apply that the pile must be moved out of the Colorado floodplain to another location in the State of Utah. Is this the understanding of the gentleman of how this provision will operate?

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out once again, the Clinton-Gore administration supports passage of this bill. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, which, if I understand correctly, there are 45 Democrat Senators in the other body. So this should not be a partisan issue. I want to briefly read from the report that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) asked the GAO to do on pipeline safety. On page 5, in the summary section, it says, ``The office,'' meaning the office that is responsible for overseeing pipeline safety, ``has historically had the lowest rate of implementation for these recommendations of any Transportation agency and has not implemented 22 statutory requirements, 12 of which date from 1992 or earlier.'' Now, the law that is before us is stronger than the current law. And the Clinton-Gore administration has not implemented the current law. For my friends on the other side of the aisle that have concerns, legitimate concerns, direct those to the present administration. Help us pass this bill and then get it implemented.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled at some of the opposition from the other side on this issue. My subcommittee held hearings on this legislation last year. My subcommittee passed the bill, I think, by unanimous consent out of the subcommittee. We passed a piece of legislation on this issue either by unanimous consent or with very few no votes out of the full Committee on Commerce, over a year ago. That legislation has languished as the Senate has worked its will on this same issue. And now, as we are in the waning weeks of this Congress, the Senate has reported a bill that, quite frankly, is much stronger than the bill that came out of the Committee on Commerce. Our bill was a straight reauthorization of the existing pipeline safety law with some modifications. At the time of our hearings and the time of the debate in the committee, the Committee on Commerce, there were some concerns raised. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who just spoke, raised some concerns; but basically, at that point in time last year, it was felt that straight reauthorization with some modification was acceptable. Now, what the other body has done is to actually present a much tougher bill in terms of safety. In fact, I think I could say with a straight face on the floor that this is the toughest pipeline safety bill to ever come before the House of Representatives. It increases fines in some cases by a factor of 20. It reduces the reporting requirements for liquid spills to 5 gallons. It increases dramatically the rights of local officials, safety agencies, and community residents to have access to important safety information from pipelines. It provides for a much expanded R&D program to improve pipeline safety technology. It provides, for the first time, whistle-blower protection for pipeline employees who wish to come forward and report possible safety or other types of violations. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I might add in the political context that the Clinton-Gore administration supported passage of this bill when it came out of the other body. The Democrat Senators from some of the States that have pipeline accidents in New Mexico and Washington State supported this bill when it was on the other body's floor. So it comes over to us. Now, in a perfect world, we would like to have the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure pass a bill, then go to the Committee on Rules and merge the Committee on Commerce bill and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure bill, then come to the floor and have a debate with some amendments. But we are late in the session, so we have put the Senate bill on the floor under suspension of the rules, which means it will take a two-thirds vote to pass this legislation later this evening. I think we should be able to get a two-thirds vote. And if there are those that, for whatever reason, think that the Senate bill is imperfect, we can obviously come back to this legislation in the next Congress and, depending on which political party is in control, obviously reopen it and make further improvements, if that is necessary. But the decision today is do we pass the Senate bill. My judgment as subcommittee chairman that has jurisdiction on this issue is that the Senate bill is an improvement over current law, that it needs to be passed. We should get the two-thirds vote. I have gone through the summary of the Senate legislation. I have looked at all of the analysis of the Senate legislation. I could quote some of the support groups that are supporting it. In addition to the Clinton-Gore administration, the National Governors' Conference is supporting this legislation. So it is a good piece of legislation. I would hope that our colleagues, when we come to the floor later this evening, do pass this by a two-thirds vote so that we can send it on its way. If for some reason that fails, I would recommend to the leadership that we go to the Committee on Rules, we get a rule, and we bring it out under regular order, have a debate and vote it where it only needs a majority. But we felt like this was a strong enough piece of legislation that it could be put on the suspension calendar. And, quite frankly, I thought it was noncontroversial enough to be put on the suspension calendar. So I am a little bit surprised about some of the statements that have been made so far on this particular bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2438, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2000. This legislation greatly improves the safe operation of natural gas, oil, and hazardous liquid pipelines and goes far to prevent future accidents. The bill requires higher safety standards, allows a greater role for State participation, provides for strict accountability by the Department of Transportation to Congress, and allows increased public education and participation. It provides long term solutions for public safety by appropriating funds for Research and Development for innovative technologies for improving the structural integrity of pipelines and preventing accidents. And, it backs up these higher safety standards by sharply raising penalties for safety violators. The recent accidents in Bellingham, Washington and New Mexico have made us all aware that higher safety standards and additional oversight authority benefit all of us. This legislation answers the concerns raised by those accidents. It requires the Department of Transportation to issue rules and for pipeline operators to develop programs that provide for: increased inspection of pipelines; increased maintenance; public input into the development of these programs; strengthened training for pipeline employees; improved data collection about pipelines and about accidents; public education programs; availability of information to the public; greater emergency preparedness; an expanded State role in oversight, inspection, and investigation of interstate pipelines; and protection for employees that report safety violations. In addition, the legislation requires inspection reports, maps of pipeline facilities, and other data to be available to the public. It raises public awareness by requiring a public education program. Many of these programs have deadlines and require the Secretary of Transportation to report back to Congress on the progress of these programs within a certain period of time. And, as I stated earlier, penalties have been increased, in one instance from 25 thousand dollars to five hundred thousand dollars. We know that it is essential to have public support for maintaining the safe operation of pipelines. That is why a ``whistleblower'' protection provision is included in this bill. Other bills do not have these protections for good citizens and employees. This legislation also brings in the experts--it provides for the National Academy of Sciences to advise the Secretary of Transportation on Research and Development for innovative technologies to improve the safety, reliability, and structural integrity of pipelines, and inspection and leak detection technology. Research and Development is also focused on minimizing the environmental impact of pipelines. In sum, this legislation greatly advances the ultimate goal of preventing future accidents by requiring and enforcing stricter safety standards, and expanding the role of the States and the public to ensure the safe operation of pipelines. I strongly urge my colleagues to support S. 2438.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of acknowledging the great service and loyalty Harold D. Samuels has afforded me these past seven years, not only as District Director for the Sixth Congressional District of Texas, but also as a trusted friend. Harold also diligently served the Sixth District as both a City Councilman and the Mayor of Euless, TX, for 25 years. Harold was born in Waxahachie, TX, in 1934, and graduated from Waxahachie High School in 1951. Harold and the former Tommie Smith have been happily married for 45 years, and together they have three children, Warren, Scott, and Carole. Warren is currently a Baptist Minister, and he and his wife, Sherry, have three daughters. Scott is a General Contractor for the city of Euless, and Carole is happily married with two children. Harold and Tommie are active members of the First Baptist Church in Euless, where they currently reside. Harold currently donates his time as Secretary for the Board of Trustees for John Peter Smith Health Systems in Fort Worth, and heads his own successful company. The Sixth District of Texas thanks Harold D. Samuels for his service and dedication to public service, and I personally thank him for his seven years of faithful service as my District Director.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of acknowledging the former Naum Falkovich, an immigrant from the Ukraine. As Supervisor for the Transportation Authority, Mr. Falkovich helped to clean up the world's worst nuclear disaster at Cherynobyl in 1986. He made daily trips to the nuclear disaster to ensure proper evacuation, while his wife, Lyusya Falkovich, helped clothe those in the immediate area of the disaster. Mrs. Falkovich later received a medal for her special efforts during the disaster. In 1993, their desire to escape a land of religious persecution motivated the family to sell all of their belongings, including the precious medal. The Falkovich family sought refuge in America, a land where opportunities are boundless and freedoms are afforded to every human. Fearing his death would arrive before his citizenship, Mr. Falkovich's family contacted my office seeking assistance to expedite the naturalization process. On June 9, 2000, just hours before his death, the 71 year old immigrant named Naum Falkovich received his last wish and became a citizen of the United States. Only a few hours later the proud U.S. citizen lost his grueling battle with cancer. I speak today to honor Mr. Falkovich, and his courage to seek a better life for himself and his beloved family.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is true. That is true. My brother has told me one miracle. He had to undergo chemotherapy last year for his sinus carcinoma and he said he wanted it as strong as he could take it. So they literally took him to the verge of death with his first round of chemotherapy, and he told me and his wife and our other family members that an angel came and sat on the edge of his bed in the hospital and was talking to him and telling him that things would be fine and that he did not have to worry about his wife or his children. It just gave John a sense of peace that the Lord was with him and had sent an angel down. Of course, at that time, he came back. So I know that there is an angel that has been assigned to him. Of course, we are hoping that the angel does not have to come again real soon, that we want the angel to keep an eye on my little brother, John, but not take him from us yet.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Yes. I would like to just humanize John a little bit, tell a few stories about his background. I have already mentioned that he is 43 years old, married, has two lovely children, two sons. But John is not perfect. I remember the first week he got his driver's license and he was 16 in Waco, Texas, and my parents had one good car and one kind of second car, and so John got to drive the second car. It was a Ford Fairlane. The first week he got his driver's license he was driving down 25th street in Waco, and at that time there was a movie theater called the 25th Street Theater; and the young lady who was in the ticket box, the box office, was a friend of his from high school, and John drove by, and trying to do some fancy maneuver with the car and wave at her, he hit three cars and totaled two of them and drove a car up into the front entrance of the local newspaper. I happened to be a senior in college at the time and was home with some of my old high school football buddies; and when he called home, he did not ask for my father, he asked for me. He said, Joe, you are going to have to come down and help me out a little bit. So my buddies and I, we got in the car and they all knew him as ``Little Joe,'' because when we were in high school, John was not more than 4\1/2\ feet tall, so he had grown up by the time I got to college. We went down to see him and he was standing outside, looking at the car and not too knowing what to do. After we got through laughing about it, we said, Well, John, you are going to have to call Dad. There is no way to get around it. So he did, and of course my father came down and he was not too happy about it. He did not laugh a bit. One of my memories of my little brother in high school was standing there looking so forlorn, with the girl he was trying to impress in the box office at the movie theater laughing, and all of my friends laughing, and my father just absolutely chewing his tail out for having this happen: the first time he had his driver's license, or in fact the first time he had his driver's license and drove by himself, totalling two cars and sending another car into the front office of the local newspaper, which obviously the next day ran a very uncomplimentary story about Larry Barton's youngest son. I can also remember in 1984 when I decided to run for Congress, now today we read routinely about million dollar campaigns and all these high-priced consultants and TV ads, but in the Sixth District of Texas in 1984 in the Republican primary there was not any of that. It was an absolutely family-oriented grass roots campaign. By then John was an attorney who was living down in Corpus Christi, Texas. I convinced him to come to Ennis and help run my campaign. So he went from a beachfront apartment in Corpus Christi, Texas, down on the Gulf Coast, where there were sea breezes and just a really nice lifestyle, to sleeping on a cot in the kitchen of my home. My mother- in-law and father-in-law slept on a pallet out in the garage. My campaign driver slept on the couch. My sister slept in one room, a bedroom, with my oldest daughter, Alison. Jan and I slept in what was called the master bedroom, which meant it had an extra foot of space, with Christine, our youngest daughter, in the crib. John would routinely be woken up in the morning by my 2-year-old Kristin looking into his eyes tickling him. We offered him a great salary I think of $600 a month, but what that really meant was when he had a car note come due or a college loan payment come due my sister Jan, who was a campaign Treasurer, would say, you bring me the bill and I will pay the bill. And he did an outstanding job in that campaign. I got into a runoff, and in the runoff I lost the runoff by I want to say 9 votes out of about 10,000 votes cast. To seek a recount you had to file a legal document in every county court, and there were 14 counties. So my brother, who was the only attorney on the payroll of the campaign, had to file those documents. He prepared the legal briefs. Within 3 days he went to all 14 county courthouses in the Sixth District of Texas and filed the legal paperwork to request a hand count recount of every ballot that had been counted, had been cast in the primary runoff. In that runoff he coordinated some pro bono attorneys who represented me at each recount, and we went from losing the election by 9 votes to winning the election by 10 votes. To this day, I think if it had not been for my little brother, that might not have happened. I can also remember when he came to see me about 4 years ago. By now he was married and had two children and was practicing law in Fort Worth, Texas. He said, Joe, I have decided that I wanted to run for office. I said, ``John, have you not seen enough of me and what I have done to convince you that there are better ways to make a living than trying to get elected?'' And he said, ``Yes, I have, but I do not want to run for Congress, I want to run for district judge.'' The county he was living in is the fourth largest county in Texas, so that meant that he had to run countywide in a county that has 1 million people. I said, ``John, how much money do you have to run for office?'' He said, ``I don't have any money.'' I said, ``Okay, what kind of an organization do you have?'' He said, ``I don't have any organization.'' I said, ``Okay. Have you done something notable in the county in a public way that your name is on the lips of all the voters?'' He said, ``I have not done that.'' I said, ``Well, why do you think you can win a district judgeship in Tarrant County, Texas? He said, ``Well, if you can run for Congress and win, I know I can run for district judge and win.'' I did not have an answer to that, so I said, Okay. So when he announced for district judge, he announced in a seat for a position for a courtship that he did not think he would have any opposition in. I felt pretty confident that he would win an uncontested election, but that did not work out. One of the biggest law firms in Fort Worth decide that they had an attorney that they wanted to run for that same position, so an excellent attorney in Fort Worth who had an excellent reputation, was well known in the legal community, had impeccable credentials, decided to run against John. Of course, when that was announced we were not real happy about that. But to make a long story short, just like in my campaign in 1984 for Congress where my mother and my father and my brother and my sister and my grandmother, my aunt and uncle, all the Barton family and the Bice family and the Winslow family were out campaigning. Those same family Members trekked up to Tarrant County, Texas, and we got on the telephones and we stood in front of the polling places and we handed out cards and we did all the grass roots things, and again, John was outspent, but when the dust had cleared, he won county-wide. He got the largest number of votes for any county-wide office on the ballot, and he almost got more votes than I did. That kind of upset me a little bit. But he has gone on to do an outstanding job. In fact, he has done such an outstanding job that this year he is up for reelection and he has no opponent. When I go to Tarrant County, which is about half of my congressional district, more and more now I am introduced as Judge Barton's brother, which is a real tribute to him. I really rise this evening to again appeal to all my colleagues and to anybody who may be watching in the country, if anyone knows of something that could help a metastasized cancer of the liver, please get in touch with my office so we can refer that to my brother's doctors. John is one of the many cancer statistics. Liver cancer kills 14,000 people in the United States each year. It is a very, very difficult disease to arrest once it has progressed. In my brother's case, it is serious, but there is still some small hope. Just like the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), there are many miracles that have occurred in cancer. The Barton family is hoping for one more. Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend the Speaker for allowing me to do this special order, I want to thank my colleagues for listening, and simply hope that we may yet find one miracle for John Barton in Fort Worth, Texas.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I have, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my brother's attitude is such that he peps us up. It is amazing to me that here he is, because it is the liver cancer, he is very jaundiced and has difficulty moving now, and yet when we talk to him on the telephone or see him in person, he is the most upbeat person in the room. It just amazes me the faith that he has and the attitude that he can be trying to cheer others up. I will call him, and I will be mad about something we have done in the Congress or we have not done in the Congress; and he will kid with me about, am I going to come back the next day and rectify that. I mean, it is just amazing. So the gentlewoman is exactly right, that attitude is important.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have offered half of my liver. I am a little bit older than my brother, but I do not smoke and drink, so I am healthy, other than a lot of air miles back and forth to Texas. The problem with that is that his liver is so far gone and it has metastasized. They did not want to do a transplant or let me donate even half my liver because the theory is that they would have to lower his immune system to take a new liver and in doing that, the cancer may be other places and it would explode. Now, there is some tremendous research being done. Stem cells and bone marrow have shown that they can migrate to the liver and transform into new liver cells; and, of course, the liver will regenerate itself.