Joe Barton

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I want to compliment the gentleman for his effort. We have given it to our constitutional experts. If the gentleman will work with me, if we are not successful today, we very well could do that. Of course, the gentleman would have to vote with us at some point in time on the amendment.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point? I am going to compliment the gentleman if he will yield.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentleman has more time than I do now.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon). (Mr. SALMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. BARTON of Texas. I did, Mr. Speaker, and I thought I had asked for unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a cosponsor of the amendment.

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Is there any truth to the rumor that the beavers are actually contract employees of the IRS?

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I were a permanent resident at my apartment in Arlington, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) would be my congressman. I get all his mailings. And he does an excellent job, so I want to commend him on this. I want to comment about having to waive the rule that we pass. My colleague correctly pointed out that when it was waived, it was waived because we were trying to cut the capital gains. And the way the capital gains code is structured, we actually have to increase the rate in order to lower the net effect of the total tax. So we have protected that in the tax limitation amendment because of the de minimis requirement, and we have a specific section in there about capital gains. So I just wanted to point that out. I know the gentleman may not have known that.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the name of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. John Porter) from House Joint Resolution 37, the Tax Limitation Constitutional Amendment.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following paper as a request for a constituent of mine from Burleson, Texas. His name is Kenneth Hunter and he collaborated with Prof. Rinaldo DeNuzzo on the following article which cites a need for a federal office with a national drug expert. This is not an endorsement either for or against their effort, but a submission of their idea. The Urgent Need for a Drug Expert In recognition of the dynamic changes which continue to occur in the delivery of health care services in the United States and globally, it is suggested that the President and/ or Congress re-establish the office of Apothecary-General which disappeared from the United States Army in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. This skilled health care professional of equal status, while working in tandem with the Surgeon-General, would provide advice and counsel to the office of the President, the Congress and others. This professional with offices in Washington, DC, will serve to coordinate and oversee all aspects of mandated and other programs involving drug use or abuse by the general public, military, veterans, and others. Originally, the Office of Apothecary was created by action of the American Congress in 1775. The need for such an official became evident to Dr. John Morgan, the second of four Medical Directors of the American Revolutionary Army. Morgan recognized the need for coordination of the valuable skills provided by the apothecaries as well as those by the surgeons. The Congress also established a military hospital to care for the 20,000-man militia involved in the Revolutionary War. As with other medical care personnel, the apothecaries were directed to visit and tend to the needs of those who were sick or wounded. Dr. Morgan, physician-apothecary, as director of the Department of Hospitals wrote to Dr. Jonathan Potts, deputy director, informing him that ``a warrant to Mr. Andrew Craigie to act as an apothecary'' had been issued. Potts was advised that the appointment of Craigie will be particularly useful due to his experience. ``Without such a one, I know not how you could either procure sufficient medicines for your department or dispense them when got.'' Dr. Morgan was an influential advocate for the separation of medicine and pharmacy in America. He taught pharmacy and is credited with the introduction of prescription writing in America. Morgan, additionally admonished Dr. Potts ``to make it a part of the duty of mates to assist the apothecary in making up and dispensing medicine.'' He states, ``The Apothecary to all intent is to be looked on in rank as well as pay in the light of the surgeon and respected accordingly and if he is capable, he should in return, do part of the surgeon's duty.'' During the period of 1775-1780, there were several Apothecary-Generals serving in three of the four Revolutionary War Districts. In 1780, a reorganization of the military medical department concentrated all authority in one medical staff, and Andrew Craigie became sole Apothecary- General. He served as such until the end of the War when a treaty with Britain was signed in 1783. Many apothecaries played vital roles in the American Colonies' struggle for independence. Among them was American military hero Dr. Hugh Mercer, physician-apothecary, who operated a pharmacy in Fredericksburg from 1771 until the beginning of the Revolution. General Mercer suffered wounds and died on the battlefield in 1777. Following his death, the Congress approved a monument to be erected in Fredericksburg with the following inscription: ``Sacred to the memory of Hugh Mercer, Brigadier-General in the Army of the United States. He died on the 12th of January, 1777, of the wounds he received on the 3rd of the same month, near Princeton, NJ, bravely defending the liberties of America. The Congress of the United States, in testimony of his virtues and their gratitude, has caused this monument to be erected.'' Dr. Mercer's historic apothecary shop is currently maintained by the Association for the Preservation of Virginian Antiquities in Fredericksburg, VA. It is open to the public. Apothecary Christopher Marshall was commissioned by the Continental Congress in 1776, the year the Declaration of Independence was signed, to oversee service given to the needs of soldiers in Philadelphia hospitals. Two years later, the first Military Pharmacopea was issued in Philadelphia. It is noted that the American Revolutionary War served to provide us with independence and a foundation upon which the practice of pharmacy in America is based. For example, we had shops where medicines for consumer use were used to provide necessary supplies for militia. The role of apothecary was defined by Dr. Morgan as ``Making and dispensing medication.'' Dr. Craigie facilitated the establishment of laboratories and storehouses where medicines were prepared and implemented, and the army apothecary visited (counseled) the sick. From those humble beginnings, we have a pharmaceutical industry which is second to none in the world. The last Apothecary-General, Colonel James Cutbush was also an author and a teacher. He was appointed in 1814 as assistant Apothecary-General of the United States Army and served admirably during the War of 1812. By an act of Congress in 1815, the Army was reduced to a minimum and many officers were retired. President Madison, the same year, directed that the Apothecary-General and two assistants be retained in the ``Military Peace Establishment of the United States.'' The office of Physician and Surgeon General was abolished and the Apothecary-General became the ranking officer in the Medical Department until 1818, when the first Surgeon General was appointed. As a professor at West Point Military Academy, James Cutbush became a pioneer in the chemistry of explosives. In support of the proposal to re-establish the office of Apothecary-General nationally, pharmacy practitioners with expertise in drug use and misuse (abuse) make daily contributions to the delivery of medical care. Pharmacists are the most readily available and approachable professionals, often working seven days a week and sometimes 24 hours a day. Frequently, they are the initial portal of entry into medical care by advising the appropriate non- prescription drug for non-serious ailments, championing healthy life styles, and making referrals to other or professionals for needed care when appropriate. Pharmacists provide the greatest number of professional daily exposures to the population as more than two billion prescriptions are dispensed annually. They also provide a high level of pharmaceutical care by monitoring prescription and non-prescription drug use to insure that therapeutic objectives are achieved. Additionally, for the tenth successive year, the Gallop Poll found that the American consumer ranks the pharmacy practitioner as the most trusted professional in the land. During the 1986-96 decade, alcoholism and drug addiction were key elements in the explosion in our national prison population. In a recent Columbia University study, the number of inmates in federal, local, and state prisons tripled from 500,000 to 1,700,000. Drugs and alcohol were involved in 80% of the incarcerations. The President's appointments of the last two drug Czars consisted of an educator and a military officer which led to a spirited attempt to solve our war on drugs with limited positive results. It is time to appoint a drug expert to solve the problems. Pharmacists' specialty lies in the knowledge of drugs. They relate well to people in a positive fashion, and have been found to be outstanding administrators. The authors of this paper hope that their actions will start a ground swell movement to give new recognition to the practice of pharmacy and its practitioners in a rational and accountable way. If action is taken, the use of an Apothecary-General may lead to an increase in efficiency in the Federal bureaucracy, a significant decrease in the number of citizens incarcerated, and reduce Federal and State spending. We have the talent and leadership ability; so let's save the taxes. This is now the time to re-establish the office of Apothecary-General.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, having a Member of Congress in your family is kind of like a white elephant gift. You are kind of glad you have it, you just do not quite know what to do with it. But every now and then it pays off to have a congressman in your family. Today is one of those days. On December 7, 1998, Mike Gerro and Jan Barton Gerro had a beautiful baby daughter, Whitney Elizabeth Gerro. They have written this poem to announce her arrival to the world, and I want to read it for my colleagues here in the House. It is entitled, ``A Special Arrival.'' She's an angel of sweetness A treasure of love A beautiful blessing From heaven above. A daughter adored. Who with nurture will grow. What a pleasure to welcome Whitney Elizabeth Gerro. She really is a blessing. She had her baptism this past Sunday in Arlington, Texas. I am very, very proud to be one of her uncles.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all 4 articles of impeachment. I will stand by my oath of office to uphold this nation's laws and vote to impeach President Clinton on the charges of perjury. The evidence presented has demonstrated that President Clinton knowingly, willfully and repeatedly lied not only to a federal judge and grand jury, but directly to the American people. This act of perjury is a criminal and impeachable offense and directly violates the oath taken by the President to serve the country within the legal boundaries set forth by the Constitution. Just as troublesome is the President's involvement in influencing other witnesses to provide false testimony in the Paula Jones case and his attempts to refer to these known falsities as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Upon entering the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton took the following oath: ``I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' Now, I ask these questions: Do actions such as lying under oath and to the American people, as well as suborning perjury from other witnesses help to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States? Do these actions represent the best of Mr. Clinton's abilities to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? I believe that it is painfully obvious that not only do these actions not help the President fulfill his duty and faithfully execute his office, but they directly lead to a failure to uphold this solemn oath and a direct betrayal of the American people. Title 18 of the U.S. Code designates perjury as the act of anyone who, while under oath, ``knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes uses of any other information (known) to contain any false declaration.'' Perjury is punishable by a monetary fine and up to five years in federal prison, and perjury certainly rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors necessary for a charge of impeachment. After reviewing the over 60,000 pages of evidence submitted to the House Judiciary Committee by Judge Starr, I find it obvious that there is indisputable evidence that the President lied under oath, aided and allowed others to lie under oath and obstructed justice. There is no doubt that these instances occurred, there is no doubt that these instances are illegal and there is no doubt that they undermine the integrity of the Constitution and the office of the Presidency. Even as the highest-ranking official in the country, President Clinton is not above the law. I am proud of the House for honoring the Constitution and taking such a courageous stand in its vote for impeachment. I have no doubt that the Senate will responsibly take on this matter and I trust that justice will be served.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize Geography Awareness Week in Texas. Geography is about knowing where things are. It's about being able to read a map to find your way, calculate the time difference before making a long distance, and even situate a place heard about on the news onto your mental map of the world. But geography is also about understanding why things are located where they are. It offers perspectives and information in understanding ourselves, our relationship to the Earth's resources and our interdependence with other people of the world. By knowing geography, we can see how historical processes and present activities influence people, places and things. Geography education better prepares us to understand, interpret and find our place in this changing world at a time when tools like the Internet take us to every corner of the world with the click of a button. This year, state geographic alliances across the country, including in my home state of Texas, are celebrating the theme: ``People, Places and Patterns: Geography Puts the Pieces Together.'' The state of Texas has begun the task of improving geographic education by adopting state geography standards, and through the support of the teachers' organization Texas Alliance for Geographic Education, is actively working to implement these standards by disseminating new advances in teaching geography at the kindergarten through senior high level. November 15th to 21st will be Geography Awareness Week in Texas. I urge residents to recognize the importance of geography, and to work toward the development of geographic knowledge in our schools and communities.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the special order time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon).

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce has held 7 hearings since August this year into the circumstances surrounding the planned relocation of the Federal Communications Commission to the Portals, a privately owned and financed office complex in Southwest Washington, D.C. in which Mr. Franklin L. Haney is a partner. In particular, hearings have focused on the questionable fee arrangements Mr. Franklin L. Haney had with several top Washington lawyers/lobbyists, including Peter Knight, a former top Senate aide to Vice President Gore and manager of the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign; James Sasser, a former U.S. Senator from Tennessee, the current United States Ambassador to China; and Mr. John Wagster, a former subcommittee staff director for then Senator Sasser. At this time the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations does not plan to hold any further hearings, but I do believe that the evidence developed to date warrants specific referrals to the Department of Justice for investigation as to whether Mr. Franklin L. Haney, Mr. Peter Knight, Mr. James Sasser, and Mr. John Wagster might have committed one or more illegalities in connection with the Portals matter, the committee's investigation thereof, and other related matters, such as the extension of the Franklin L. Haney lease with the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Department of Justice campaign finance task force currently is investigating some aspects of the Portals matter, but it is unclear whether the Department is focusing on some of the legal questions that our investigation has raised. In addition, there is substantial reason to believe that in attempting to conceal the true nature of their fee arrangement, some of the individuals that I have mentioned may have lied under oath or otherwise made false or deceptive statements to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce, which in and of themselves constitute crimes worthy of referral for further investigation. In consultation with the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Bliley) of the Committee on Commerce, I have directed majority committee counsel to prepare expeditiously a report setting forth findings on this matter, and the grounds for specific referrals to the Justice Department, which will be shared with all members of the subcommittee in order to solicit their views. However, based on a preliminary assessment of the evidence gathered so far and the potentially applicable laws that may have been violated, I believe the subcommittee's investigation has raised the following legal questions: Whether Mr. Franklin L. Haney may have violated 41 U.S. code section 254(a) by retaining Mr. Peter Knight, Mr. James Sasser, and Mr. John Wagster on a contingency fee basis with respect to the Portals and or TVA leases; number 2, whether in violation of the False Statements Act, 18 USC 1001, and the False Claims Act, 31 U.S. Code, Section 3729, Mr. Franklin L. Haney may have caused a false certification of claim to be filed with the government asserting that he had not hired or retained anyone on a contingency fee basis with respect to the Portals and the TVA leases. Whether, in violation of the Federal Conspiracy Statute, (18 U.S. Code, Section 371) Mr. Peter Knight, Mr. James Sasser or Mr. John Wagster may have conspired with Mr. Franklin L. Haney in the making of these false certifications, or in an effort to defraud the United States Government by impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of a department or government agency. Whether, in violation of the False Statements Act (18 U.S. Code 1001) and the Federal Perjury Statute (18 U.S. Code 1621) Mr. Franklin Haney, Mr. Peter Knight or Mr. James Sasser may have made false or deceptive statements or lied under oath before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Commerce with respect to the nature of their fee arrangements on the Portals or and/or TVA leases; and Whether Mr. Sasser may have violated 18 U.S. Code 203(a) by agreeing to and receiving compensation while a U.S. official for the representational services of another before a government agency with respect to a matter directly involving the Federal Government. I also believe that the Department of Justice and the General Services Administration should take immediate steps to recover the $2.5 million in fees paid by Mr. Franklin Haney to Mr. Peter Knight, Mr. James Sasser and Mr. John Wagster on the Portals as authorized by statute, and the more than $17 million paid out to the Portals partnership for rent on a vacant building due to the fixed rent start date that Mr. Franker L. Haney and his representatives secured to facilitate his financing of the Portals. The subcommittee's investigation into the Portals has been a difficult one, mainly due to the unprecedented lack of voluntary cooperation and the deliberate efforts at obstruction by Mr. Franklin L. Haney and his associates, virtually all of whom refused to be interviewed by committee staff or provide documents voluntarily. Mr. Franklin L. Haney's refusal to produce subpoenaed materials ultimately led to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the Committee on Commerce and the full Committee on Commerce to hold him in contempt of Congress. A report detailing those proceedings against Mr. Franklin L. Haney recently was filed by the House by the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Thomas Bliley). It is also my hope that the House will use this case to make much- needed changes to its rules governing investigations, including expediting enforcement of subpoenas and permitting subpoenas to be issued for staff depositions of witnesses who refuse to be interviewed voluntarily. These steps, among others, will permit the investigative subcommittees to do their important job in a more efficient, timely fashion in the future.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for legislation passed by the House of Representatives on October 9, 1998, H.R. 4567, ``The Medicare Home Health Care Interim Payment System Refinement Act,'' as it was amended by the Commerce Committee. This legislation will remedy some of the problems the home health agencies in my state and district are facing with the interim payment system passed in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The state of Texas is a unique state in more ways than one. We have a very large and ever-growing population. We also have a very high number of ``new'' home health agencies, meaning agencies established after October 1, 1994. According to the September 1998 General Accounting Office report to Congress on Home Health Agency Closures, Medicare- certified home health agencies in Texas grew from 961 agencies in 1994 to 1,949 agencies in 1997. According to that same report, 134 agencies have closed recently, leaving the state with 1,758 agencies as of August 1, 1998, still more, many more agencies than existed in the state in 1994. As you can see, Texas, as opposed to a state like New Hampshire which has only 46 home health agencies, has been affected greatly by the interim payment system. One issue I have been very involved with as the Chairman of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is the problem of fraud and abuse in the Medicare and its effect on the continued solvency of the program. One of the changes made in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was to move Medicare home health care reimbursement to a prospective payment system (PPS). Since there were impediments to going to a PPS immediately, an interim payment system (IPS) was established for reimbursement to home health care agencies. As stated above, the IPS has caused problems for many agencies, especially newer agencies. The problems with the IPS and the fact that HCFA recently announced that they will not meet the original October 1, 1999 date set for the PPS to be enacted required Congressional action to straighten out some of the problems with the IPS. There are obviously some bad actors in home health care, but there are many more good ones. I do not believe it was the Congress' intention for good operators to be punished by regulations that are too punitive. The honest providers who want to provide quality care should not be penalized. The legislation considered by the House makes a move in the right direction. I commend the principals involved, Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer and Health Subcommittee Chairman Bill Thomas, as well as Commerce Chairman Tom Bliley and Health Subcommittee Chairman Michael Bilirakis, on achieving some legislative relief for the home health agencies in my state as well as across the country. I do not believe that I am alone in the sentiment that we will be revisiting the home health care issue in the 106th Congress for there are additional issues yet to be considered. I do support this home health package and its contribution towards a workable, efficient, and common sense solution for home health care agencies across this country.

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his excellent work on the base bill. He has done a tremendous job. I am rising specifically to support the amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) and I have been working in this Congress to implement the House rule that says all Members of Congress and the congressional staff shall be drug tested. We have a House rule that is ready to come to the floor. We have to honor the Speaker's request that there be a Republican conference on the proposed implementation of the House rule before we bring it to the floor, and I am still hopeful that we can hold that conference and bring that rule, House rule, to the floor in the next 3 weeks. In the meantime, the amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) that would require as a condition of employment all Federal employees to be drug tested is a giant step in the right direction. I have a drug testing plan in my office for myself and my congressional staff. I have had it since 1989. I have extensively worked with the business community, the social welfare community, on making sure that any drug testing plans, first that they are accurate, and second that they are confidential, and that they are implemented in a fair fashion. As has been pointed out, drug testing does work. It identifies the people that have the problem. It also in most plans gives an opportunity to go into drug counseling rehabilitation. And if we were to pass the Taylor amendment, which I will enthusiastically support, it would help combat the drug problem that faces our country. So, again, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for bringing the base bill to the floor, and I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for taking the advantage of putting the amendment on, and I hope that we adopt this by unanimous consent.

Mr. BARTON

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

Mr. BARTON of Texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to try to very quickly go through what I think are the substantive points in this debate. I want to try to address some of the comments the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentleman also from Texas (Mr. Reyes) have already raised and, in advance, some of the comments that perhaps the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) will raise when he speaks in opposition. With regards to the fact that the conference report is coming back as a clean bill, if we look at the House Record of October 7, 1997, on page 8531, there is a colloquy or a dialogue between myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) where I agreed to accept his amendment, but I did so with the reservation that we would check with the governor of Texas and let the representatives of Vermont and Maine check with their governors, and if they opposed the inclusion of the Doggett amendment, we reserved the right to strip that out in conference. The gentleman understood that and accepted it at the time. Well, we did check with Governor Bush in terms of Texas, we checked with the governors of Maine and Vermont, and they decided that they did not want to accept any amendments, because no other compact had been amended on the floor of the House or the Senate previously when those compacts had been agreed to. So the conferees did strip out the Doggett amendment. If Governor Bush and the other State governors had accepted it, we would have accepted it and reported it back. Let us talk about some of the environmental concerns that have been raised. We have talked about some water table concerns. The water table at the site is 700 feet beneath the site. The groundwater there moves very slowly. There is no analysis that says there could be groundwater contamination at all, period. With respect to the earthquake, and administrative law judges did state in their denial of the site a specific request that the earthquake analysis had not been adequately addressed. But they also said that that, in and of itself, was not a reason to deny the site. I want to go through some of the earthquake site-specific issues. The strongest earthquake that has ever been recorded in Texas history is 6.4 on the Richter scale. This site is designed to withstand an earthquake of a magnitude of 6.0 directly beneath the site. The last time they can calculate there was ever an earthquake in the area was between 750,000 and 12 million years ago, Mr. Speaker, 750,000 and 12 million years ago. That is 730,000 years before the pyramids were built in Egypt. The earthquake seismic activity rating for the region is, one, the same as Washington, D.C. This Capitol could not withstand an earthquake of 6.0 on the Richter scale directly beneath it. So I think there are some issues there. But again, even according to the administrative law judges' recommendation, in and of itself, the seismic concerns----